-snip-
For my part even as the one of the more vocal of the small blockchain crowd, I worry that 4-7 tps isn't enough even when penny-ante micro-transactions are happening off on some sidechain or another. If I saw a clear and well constructed path to real scaling and 1MB simply wasn't sufficient and it was demonstrated with something resembling rigor I'd change my tune about a fork. As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like. That's how I see it.
---
I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong, and the more I think about it (from tapping out an earlier post on this thread), I think there is a damn good chance that 'mpcoin' could come out on top in the end. I'm actually kind of looking forward to a battle to say the truth. As I said, such a thing would be a really good way to really harden the system in a form where it is actually worth having around on planet earth.
Basically your post is nicely written nonsense. The problem lies in power and control.
140 TPS might be enough in the upcoming years, but later it will not be. What you've also understood wrong is that the current TPS is not 4-7, it will average even less (which is horrible).
B: That "I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong" is a hilarious logical fallacy. Using your proposition as proof for your conclusion. You're not right because you've said that you're right.
Here's a quote for the 'bloatchain'..
We still have people thinking that increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 will increase the blockchain size by the same factor.
This is FALSE.
The blockchain will grow slowly over time. It will take us years before we reach this limit. Besides the cost per GB of storage is pretty low these days.
By the time the chain starts becoming huge we would probably develop some pruning/compression techniques.