Stoat - although I don't think you're a bad person (just very enthusiastic over etherium)... you do realise that bumping this thread over and over is not beneficial for Etherium? quite the opposite.
The BBC made a video a UK troll.
Why not just listen to the critique anonymint gave and accept that you don't have any way to refute it right now. Don't feel bad about it less than 0.01% of the board understands crypto at a deep enough level to argue with smooth, anonymint et al. That and the fact even VB has not come here to offer a quick explanation of how anonymint is wrong is kind of strange. Maybe there is no way to refute it?
I mean if there was just something he is planning to deal with the issue brought up then fair enough. However nothing from him or any Eth core dev since the start. Perhaps ask on the etherium board his opinion?
or
Just wait and see. If Etherium can scale it can scale. If it can not (as i fear it can not after the laymans explanation he attempted to give on the other page) then perhaps they will find another design by which it can.
I mean if there was just something he is planning to deal with the issue brought up then fair enough. However nothing from him or any Eth core dev since the start. Perhaps ask on the etherium board his opinion?
or
Just wait and see. If Etherium can scale it can scale. If it can not (as i fear it can not after the laymans explanation he attempted to give on the other page) then perhaps they will find another design by which it can.
Well scaling is not the only problem they can't solve. Another problem is as I explained upthread, that generalized scripting destroys the security of the block chain because it enables scenarios where the 51% attacker can fund his attack by stealing the coins of others.
Ethereum is vaporware.
The unsatisfying part will be that stoat will disappear when Ethereum has failed and he was chicken shit to reveal his true identity, so we won't be able to doxx him in real life.
In one of their videos / threads they discussed about only allow a special subset of scrpting types to adress the 'generalized scripting' issue.
You think that's feasable?
Probably but it will highly limit what they can allow to be scripted.
I already made the superior proposal which is to investigate using zk-snarks to hide the data of scripts from miners (or validators). The validation could be done in zero knowledge.
In either case, they are not close to solving that issue, which is separate from the insoluble scaling issue. There is only one way to solve the scaling issue DECENTRALIZED and I know what it is. No one else in the universe apparently knows how to do it. Their only options will be to either lie about the Prisoner's Dilemma and cross their fingers or centralize the validation.
So in terms of script limitation I guess there is a massive need for re-dimensionizing what is really possible at current state - in blockchain world (not just ETH). As you know best, even a 'simple' solution for a decentralized exchange is not just DONE straight forwad at all (OK - here are two blockchains inwolved, but complexity grade looks rather low).
Bottom line it will be working, just a matter of time. All they have to do is to slightly modify the original idea that everything has to run on a blockchain. There is absolutely no reason to stick to blockchain when there is no need to. Blockchain is not the only answer to "decentralized freedom" it will have to evolve into some hybrid monster that will do the job. 