You obviously do not know what agree to disagree means, I obviously think your position is invalided and incorrect, not necessarily wrong in the ethical sense, and also not necessarily wrong in an empirical sense either since we are dealing with subjective ideologies.
Of course I do. Your opinion is invalid due to the fact that you'd support a centralization just to transact on the main chain. You're talking about it like it's some kind of big deal when you compare it to the second layer; it is not.
Nobodies opinion can ever be invalid, I have presented arguments which you have not disproven or countered. You are using a strawman argument again, I support an increase blocksize because I think that is what will maximize decentralization and financial freedom over the long run. I also think that it has been shown quite clearly that Bitcoin is closer to third or fourth layer in this analogy. Yet you continue to use it without addressing these criticisms.
I find it hard to fathom why you think that Bitcoin does not need to compete with other cryptocurrencies and alternatives, Bitcoin does not exist inside of a ivory tower, which I think much of your thinking is indicative off. The price to transact does matter and so does the user experience.
This is a straw man. This has nothing to do with my statement that the fees would correct themselves due to users joining and leaving. Similar does apply to mining it should be always marginally profitable.
Users leaving because of fees is not competitive or a good user experience, it seems like you are failing to recognize this.
In regards to mining this is true, but for you to think that transaction volume should be same, a zero sum game, because of a arbitrarily and unnecessary restriction, I strongly disagree with this. What was once a anti spam feature should not be used as an economic policy tool by a centralized technocracy. Like centralized economic planning, I think it is wrong and definitely not in the spirit of the original vision of Bitcoin.
I consider not increasing the blocksize the equivalent of crippling Bitcoin.
If you consider a horse to be a unicorn, does that make it one? What you consider something to be does not change the nature of what it is.
That is not a argument.
If you think that the will of the economic majority can kill the system with naivety then we have some fundamental disagreements about the merits of the collective wisdom of the crowd. Which I do think Bitcoin is fundamentally beholden towards.
If anything, the crowd has no wisdom, the crowd is ignorant and foolish at best (have you studied sociology at all?). Besides there is no "economic majority" that support an increase nor a HF away from Core. No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it is not going to become true.
You can say that it is not true, but it is not true until it happens, and what would you say then?
That is clear however, I do not think we will be able to agree any time soon then if you truly believe that, might explain why you are still hanging on here. I seriously suggest you learn more about political thought. To say that you disagree with the wisdom of the crowd means that you might even support a technocracy or some other form of tyranny. You should understand that Bitcoin does not entirely remove the question of "who decides". A decision does still need to be made, to say that the majority will never think one thing or another is irrelevant. The rules can be changed according to the will of the protocols participants. Even if you are an anarchist Bitcoin does still require a governance mechanism, rule by the economic majority, with the miners voting in the interests of the economic majority seems to be the best solution. It is also what was always intended I think.
I do not think you can escape this question, either you embrace freedom or you end up with a technocracy or at the very least a centralized point of control which in my opinion is antithetical to the very principles of Bitcoin itself.
Again you are not answering my question. I will be more specific. Take Democracy for example, as a political system it is very inefficient, however its advantages are worth the inefficiencies for ethical and ideological reasons. You seem to be ignoring these very important human principles when weighing up paths and visions for Bitcoins future. Bitcoin is more then just a robotic machine, human beings are a part of this machine, with their emotions, fears and even irrationality. I think that you are failing to take this into account, this is the very game theory that the Bitcoin of today relies on for its continued operation.
I could care less for humans, their emotions, fears and stupidity. What is the question here again?
You are completely proving my point here, if you can not acknowledge the fundamental game theory principles at work here then you do not understand Bitcoin.
You should try and embrace talking to people outside of your field of expertise. I might not be an expert in this field however after looking this up more it does seem like layer three is the best analogy for Bitcoin, since it is the network layer, not layer one or two. Since they already exist as the internet within a certain extend. So my argument comparing Bitcoin to the Internet Protocol still holds.
It doesn't. Layer three can't operate without layer two or one. If anything, Bitcoin would be considered layer one (LN and sidechains layer two and so on). Guess where the widely used protocols are (e.g. https, https); they must be on the first one right?
Bitcoin is build on top of the internet which is why those should be considered the base layers first. Like it was said before, Bitcoin can be considered at least beyond layer three or four.
You are now creating a circular argument, which one is it, orphan rates will be significant enough to act as a force for smaller blocks, or there is no reason not to include transactions with lower fees? Which one is it? Both can not be true, you have clearly contradicted yourself here.
I mentioned orphan rates; I never said that they would force smaller blocks. You're taking things out of context.
I am not, I am implying it, since detrimental orphan rates would incentivize miners to create smaller blocks, if that is not the case then orphan rates are not detrimental and therefore not a significant problem. There is a clear contradiction here, it is alright to sometimes be wrong, I am often wrong myself and when I am, I acknowledge it, even on these forums.
If that is your position on segwit then I suppose you do not support any solution to scaling? I know that this is not true, since you did say you supported segwit in favor of a blocksize increase. So you are saying that you support an unsafe complex change to the network but we should not support a simple change to the network because it is unsafe? Can you see the contradiction in your statements?
If I haven't stated that segwit is safe (which would be a ignorant statement; your precious HF and 2 MB blocks aren't safe either), that does not mean that I called it unsafe. There are no perfect solutions; we balance out the pros and cons and then decide. Obviously Segwit is a tad complex (or a lot, depending on your knowledge and intellect; some even compared it to an altcoin), but it is being worked on from many aspects and views (e.g. P. Todd suggested something recently that would reduce the 'risks' even further).
You are just twisting words here, something that is not safe is unsafe, we can argue semantics here but I will stand by that point.
I do not see much balance in your approach, increasing to two megabytes would be a simple compromise to make yet you see it as being take over and centralizing attack on Bitcoin, yet segwit is fine? That really does not make any sense to me, your position lacks consistency. There are several contradictions you have failed to resolve and furthermore it seems like you are against some of the more democratic principles inherent within Bitcoin, which I can respect, however strongly disagree with. I will leave you with this quote which I have always found relevant and empathetic to the technocrats faced with this situation.
In my discussions with various members of Core, I have reached the conclusion that most of them simply disagree with the design of Bitcoin, which by design allows the consensus rules to be changed by a sufficient majority of miners and users, independent of what any group of technocrats wish. It is important to remember not to attribute malice where ignorance is equally explanatory. All of the devs I engage with are very strong in cryptography and computer science, which may make them less accepting of the fact that at its core, Bitcoin relies in the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, not a group of educated technocrats. As an educated technocrat myself I can understand the sentiment. It would be better if math and only math governed Bitcoin. But that's not how Bitcoin is actually governed. At the end of the day, if social engineering and developer manipulation can kill Bitcoin, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.
