In the context of this debate, what Satoshi communicated in writing as to his intention for Bitcoin's future block size, is more important than what he coded 5 years ago as a temporary anti-spam measure.
Lol no, fuck that, no appeal to authority will be tolerated as it is not a valid argument form.
You're appealing to the authority of Satoshi coding the temporary anti-spam measure. My argument that if you're going to put credence in that, then it would be arbitrary and therefore disingenuous to claim what he communicated in writing as to his intention for Bitcoin's future block size has no authority.
all of these reasons, sidechains are not as secure. I recommend you read the sidechain whitepaper published by Blockstream to see the risks that sidechains face.
That's a very cool story, except I was talking about merged mining, not side-chains. Read what I write, you'll save us both time.
Then what, you want altcoins to handle the bulk of the transactions?
I reiterate:
A large subset of the population can continue to host full nodes without upgrading their consumer broadband, with the block size limit that Gavin has proposed (16.8 MB with 40% growth per year). Given this fact, there's no reason to gamble Bitcoin's entire future on an experiment to see what happens when blocks fill up at a low 1 MB limit for an extended period of time. I don't want to give any altcoins an opportunity to take market share from Bitcoin.