edited out
JJG I do believe your response was quite philosophical in places
Thanks for taking the time to type that out though. Over our months of back and forth I've developed much more respect for your opinions * Cheers
edit
* Not that I agree with them all but anyway. Anyhoo heading out soon, so won't go into debate mode now
Well, there is always going to be some framework from which to work, so if you believe that it might be helpful to go over areas of presumption, then perhaps that could be helpful - although we could be repeating BIG BLOCKER arguments. From your various posts, I do think that you give a lot more benefit of the doubt to the various BIG BLOCKER arguments and their framework than I do.
I tend to be really dismissive of various BIG BLOCKER framework and arguments because I think that they tend to be misleading in their tendency to create false comparisons and even to presume facts that are not in evidence - for example, BIG BLOCKERS have tended to spend so much time arguing the logic of increasing transaction times and fees - but they were also involved in SPAM attacks to attempt to create the facts that they claim existed to cause emergency needs to take action.
Furthermore, BIG BLOCKERs seem to suggest that there is some necessity that the status quo of bitcoin needs to be defended, when in fact if they are proposing facts or logic, then they are the ones that need to provide evidence and logic for their position to change the status quo. On a related note, their inability to get reception for their nonsense positions in terms of submitting BIPS and even perhaps their laziness in attempting to work within the bitcoin governance process seems to cause them to strive towards working outside the bitcoin system and to engage in attacks, threats and coercion in order to attempt to get their way, rather than really trying to get their proposed changes adopted through already existing bitcoin governance procedures. They just ignore those governance procedures because they want to change (or sabotage the bitcoin procedures) or they have other get rich quick pumping of other personalized project agendas.
You seem keen to categorise me. Before you put me in big blocker category know this. I always ran a full bitcoin node. It was a hassle synching the blockchain to get up to date when I wanted to do any transactions but I did it. I liked to have a feel for how big the blockchain was getting. How hard to synchronise. Over the years that I did this I was very aware of how much effort it took to run a full node and a sense of feeling its growth. I always thought that when a full node became too unwieldy for me that would be my signal to exit bitcoin. Recently my copy of the blockchain became corrupted. I spent a few days trying to repair/ resync and in the end gave up. I no longer run a full node. Who cares? I'm still with bitcoin but not running a full node anymore. But the point is even
small blocks are too big. When you look at the constantly, endlessly growing blockchain.
When I redeemed my bcash I didn't even consider a full node. With blocks that size! Who runs a full bcash wallet? anyone ?
With regards to block size I am not big blocker but small blocker. But if its on chain or off chain, I choose on chain. This puts me between a rock and a hard place. I don't like big blocks and I don't like second layer. But maybe now you get a sense why I can be hedged with bitcoin and bcash. In the end I admit I don't know which will be best.
In Dash master nodes have incentive to scale, so the network will remain big and distributed. The node will have to keep up or miss out. It has incentive to scale. So at least there is that.
wants to edumacate us ignorant folks about the benevolence of bcash and all that it offers (supposedly)... 
