It's a classic... learned a lot from those guys, about FF, life, and love. And then there's also Raffi.

You want to make the winner's trophy a homage to your high school girlfriend?

...

Because on top of compromising decentralization for usability (the degree of compromise can and has been argued to death, and no there's no free lunch here) it introduces new attack vectors

... whatever scheme you think you can up with imposing a new limit ( a dynamic limit is the same problem which you seem to have ignored since the dynamic limit also needs to have it's own limit) you'll need a hard fork for that .... and after the bigblockers contaminated all further possibilities of hard-forks with disingenuity and arguing in bad faith that split the development and mining community, I can confidently say bitcoin, as we know it, will never have another hard fork, i.e. any fork will be forked off by opportunists into new coins and the un-hardforked coin will always be known as bitcoin.

At least I got a nice ounce of sour diesel!   

It depends on what purpose you want the limit for. If it's to protect from unusually high loads as the original limit was for then something along the lines you suggest would work (and I've shown support for similar schemes). If, for some reason I can't fathom, you think 1 million bytes per block is a magically correct number for all time then it's not even open for consideration (and you might also not see a problem with foot-binding).

Thanks, getting the gist of it.

Since shitting on ETH seems OK, have a personal story to tell; I was contracted to evaluate Etherum security in 2016 (or it might have been 2017) because the customer wanted to build a service on top of it. After installing the official client which is a clusterfuck of different languages (Go, Python, Java, C#, etc), the client started downloading updates directly from GitHub during runtime (which means any hacked commit could potentially compromise the client instantly), so that was bad, but it didn't end there, the client crashed a lot so testing became hard, shortly after testing some more I advised the customer to not use Etherum to build anything because it's simply not stable enough. The customer was stubborn and had some kind of FOMO about his business partners building frameworks on top of ETH already, so it ended that I just refused to continue but he was welcome to hire someone else to do it. Shortly after this the first Etherum rollback happened due to malicious transactions (can't remember the details, but was not surprised), so it was obviously not "distributed" in a true sense then, emperor of rollbacks (Vitalik) had final word. After this I never touched it again, maybe it has improved security wise, probably not.

... there is no discussion with dynamic blocks because think about for longer than 2 seconds, it goes like this:

"Hmmm, dynamic blocks what's that about?"
"Well the blocks can take any size up to a limit ...."
"Oh a dynamic block size with a limit, what size should we make that?" ... and there it ends, it's the same discussion.

No. It was all through the threads on r/btc. Maxwell was the worst for disingenuous arguments and Luke was just insane, as ever but I think people like bluematt (it I remember correctly) gave it a fair shot.

Being a Bitcoin Core developer is a thankless job. I once told another now-former developer that “Bitcoin will never succeed because of our work, but it may succeed in spite of our flaws”.

So much respect for those who have contributed longer than I and contribute today.

The devs are definitely aware of the arguments and, to their credit, some have actually joined in with the discussion (some in more good faith than others).

Yes, it is scrypt, not bcrypt, wrong hashing method, my mistake.

I've been inactive long periods regarding Bitcoin when being busy with work, so sticking my ignorant neck out here hoping for some logical answers (not just rage). The Bitcoin maxi trend calling everything else "shitcoin"; was that shaped in a attempt to focus on one thing only in the hope it Bitcoin will perform better as a value of storage, or was it an side-effect of all the scams and ICOs that came after 2014/2015? Perhaps both? (Feels like missed some important parts...)

Painfully aware of the blocksize debate which never improved anything so far, now it feels defunct even, since you don't need sidechains to deal with it.

I'm ok with a live draft. Dibs on Tim Tebow.

I'm convinced. Really interesting, then.

You are braver than most, including yours truly.

+1 WO for that one, to offset part of the -1.5 WO total tentatively pending re: toxicmoxic.

Maybe it's not an agenda, but a blind spot?

Ok, ok. Some of us know you from way back and we therefore remember that you're just dicking around. I mean, it used to be funny and all that, but the comedy has lost its edge in recent times. It's a little tired and repetitive now, just sayin. You might end up frightening the noobs away too, who might actually take you at your word.

We won't hold it against you if you want to change tack and allow your true colors to shine through, though.

In the example, Namecoin includes a domain name system for internet besides being a "coin", although the project is pretty much sleeping these days AFAIK. I also regard Litecoin as old school serving the purpose of having useful differences such as faster transactions, using bcrypt instead of SHA256, etc., but sure, Bitcoin maxis are welcome to disagree.

Maybe you should provide a link, cAPSLOCK, if you believe that either there is something important and relevant that satoshi supposedly said.. From what I recall, Satoshi disappeared around late 2010, but a lot of the BIG blocker disingenuine nonsense started to get worked up in late 2015 so it increasingly ramped up in the next couple of years without really going away completely even though it should have been clear that not ONLY was the issue resolved in such a way to show the BIG BLOCKERs as largely disingenuine retards, but also current BTC development is ongoingly finding balance in onchain and offchain transactions including having goals of having some of the fee market to develop around this matter to help to inform if there might be needs for tweaks that go above and beyond ongoing tweaks that are happening.

I just don't see that.  Banks don't need small blocks to remain necessary.