As I understand, it is only a matter of terminology

I'm not very familiar with the approach that sidechains are using (so bear with me), but that is what they seem to be doing, i.e. dividing the payment network into somewhat independent segments, each basically with its own blockchain. So this system should operate in a more or less same way as IP networks are organized, i.e. payments ("IP packets") won't go outside a subchain unless they are made for wallets beyond the scope of addresses of this particular subchain. Payment channels work essentially along the same path only at a higher level, i.e. the payment network is structured not into sidechains but by payment nodes which are made known and then used by users

I'm trying to make see that no "avoid double spend" system can be like that, simply because if you want it to be trustless and decentralized, an individual user needs to KNOW, and hence, needs to be able to check for himself:

1) the rights to spend of every other user he could potentially receive coins from
2) the rights of creation/total balance of the system

and this knowledge grows with the network size, so there's no escaping for this user to have to learn more, update more, check more as the network grows.

This comes about because a "no double spend" system needs to be sure that something DID NOT HAPPEN, not that something did happen.  You need to be sure that someone *did not spend*, not that someone did spend.  The only way to know this, in one way or another, is to get regular updates on spending rights/balances/.... of other users.

This is entirely different for, say, a communications network.  You really don't care that two remote nodes had a communication.  It is no burden for you.  

This is somewhat related to the Gibbs paradox in thermodynamics.  Suppose that you have two separate networks.  If these two networks are communication networks, and you link them together, then this new link doesn't put any burden on each of the participants on each of the subnets ; on the contrary, it opens up new possibilities of interaction between users of both sub nets.  This si why the internet is such a big success: hooking up a new subnet doesn't cost anything to other users.

But suppose now that these two networks are two different crypto currencies.  "linking them together" would mean, making the tokens of one exchangeable for the other one at a fixed rate (say, 1-1), so as to make them fungible.   What happens when we do that ?  Each user now has to have TWO block chains, somehow, united (but the data on both of them is now necessary).   Each user will now receive twice as much blocks/transactions .... So the technical burden on each user of each subnet doubles.

I wonder what is the origin of our inability to communicate.  I guess we both think that the other party is being deliberately of bad faith, but there must be another reason.

I'm telling that the peculiarity of a decentralized, trustless "no double spend" network, is that the technical cost to each user has to grow (essentially linearly) with the number of users on the network, contrary to other types of decentralized networks, like the internet, which was taken as an example.

This is because the big difference between a class of decentralized networks like the internet (where the cost can be almost constant per user when it grows) and a cryptocurrency type of network, where the trick is to know that there haven't been double spends, is that each user needs to know the spending rights of ALL OTHER users ; so the more users there are, the more each user, individually, needs to know, which augments the costs of storage, computing and bandwidth for each user.  The only solution is that users delegate more and more this knowledge to centralized authorities, that do this checking for them and which they have to trust.

I would think that that argument is quite simple, clear to understand, and evidently true, and indicates why decentralized systems like bitcoin cannot scale at constant user cost, and that "increasing the network" doesn't pay for itself, contrary to a network like the internet, where more users don't put a burden on existing users.

The fact that decentralized "no double spend tokens" networks have a cost per user that scales more or less linearly with the size of the network, and a centralized, similar network, can essentially work at constant cost per user, means that there will be 'centralizing forces' in a decentralized network, from the moment that the rising cost-per-user of the growing decentralized system crosses the fixed cost of a similar, but centralized system.

This also means that all scaling "solutions" will have in them, automatic economies of scale that push towards centralization of some kind.   The type of centralization will be different, but its effect will be equivalent.

There is simply no solution to scale a decentralized no-double-spend system beyond a certain size, because it becomes non-competitive with respect to a centralized version of it, towards which it will naturally evolve.

It seems that you have finally written some substance worth of attention

Though it doesn't mean that it is applicable to an entire set of cases. As you would say, it is only a subset of the whole set of options. If we take Internet again as an example, does a switch or router need to know something about other existing networks out there? I guess that it doesn't. All it needs to know is to which port forward the packets if they belong to the network it is set to manage, or forward them to a specific port (which is an uplink to another router or switch) if these packets don't belong to this network (or drop them entirely if it hasn't been given an uplink address). This is how Internet scalability works in practice. I suspect this is basically how Bitcoin sidechains or payment channels are set up as well, therefore there is no reason to think that the overall cost is necessarily set to (linearly) increase with the expansion of the payment network since these payment nodes can be set up along with the expanding network as required and using already existing hardware. You can use a typical computer as a router just by adding enough network cards to it, though that could in fact be more expensive than to buy a switch but in case of a payment node you don't need to buy anything at all

I disagree, one of the purposes of money is to be a store of value, and bitcoin is doing that in a great way, as you say this causes people to keep holding but this is better than what we have with fiat, since fiat is not a store of value people spend their money as fast as they can because they know that their money is going to lose value, you are just not used to the way real money behaves because you have only used fiat in the past.

Indeed, usually his girlfriend's mother is younger than him (president)

Oh yeah it can and it will. The fact is that we have to get out of the trench, for sure.
We will have no choice.

It will not be for cooperation though, probably in order to kill everyone in the other trenches.

I have to disagree here, for a quite simple reason: we don't have the same problems

You can't collaborate with someone if you don't have the same objective!

The people have an objective: to build a better country for the future
The politicians have another objective: to get the economy even more oppened and biased for big companies, so they can get a big cut from those groups

How do you want us to cooperate?

Agreed on the the first part. Capitalism alone can't do shit, you got to weaken it with something otherwise it just eats everything until it explodes.

Yeah the guys wants to rise minimum social help to 750e for EVERYONE (including very rich people xD)
He also wants to lower all taxes (companies and people), to delete taxation on high fortunes and to rise every budget (army, police, education...).
We just don't know how he lowers every taxe and rise every budget and social help xD

Maybe because what he says is bulshit and he know he won't do it.

Yeah it was like 20% of people who didn't vote?
That sure makes quite lot of people.

I don't see how people could be anything but fed up. We're being enslaved every day a bit more by international companies. They got control over pretty much everything and they're just using corrupted assholes like Lepen to make us believe that the "real danger is Islam and immigration"

Sure, what's more dangerous? Free international companies or Islamic terrorism? If you answered terrorism please look at the number of deaths due to working conditions and the amount of deaths due to terrorist attacks in developped countries.
They want to make us believe the real problem are people "abusing social system". If you believe that just look at the cost of those abuses (a few dozens millions) and the cost of fiscal evasion (a few billions) and think again

Always the same shit...

You're goddamn right.
I can't stand our media saying that "right wing lost the election"... Right is already at power! There is nothing but liberals and rightist as candidates now, all the socialists and marxists haven't gone further than first turn


But still there is a slight hope. "France Insoumise" had nearly 20% of votes this time. That's still too low but we might manage to finally make a democratic revolution next time.
Maybe
I hope ^^

That not false, but the governance system want the politic working that way.
You're president okay. But their is a 2nd vote called 'Legislative' to vote for the peoples who review, accept or deny the new or law's updates.
If during that 2nd vote, the opposition wins: nothing shall pass.

His wife's son is older than him. Isn't that a bit weird to you guys? Or is that a common situation in France?

I don't see any difference between Macron and Lepen anyway. Both are rightist faschists. Lepen is just a bit more hardcore. I guess you can't expect anything else from them, we are talking about France in the end.  

Never sell an election before it is over, but it seems indeed that Macron, the socialist banker, the poor elite's child, the a-political former minister, will win hands up over Le Pen, putting an end to the conspiracy theory that Le Pen's election would bring the Euro down, and that this would result in the cataclysm of world fiat banking, putting bitcoin finally as world currency, and a few bitcoin whales as owning a few countries.
So that can be filed as a dream (or nightmare) now.

So when his wife is used up, he can switch to his step daughter (finally) 

DUDE! The programm of Melenchon was freaking simple and has never been applied anywhere!

People were to vote their own constitution and their laws.

Direct democracy was never applied. His personnal ideas are of course more closed to socialism but his programm was to give back the power to the people. And that has never happenned.