The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently. To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing. Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.
this is precisely why we disagree on everything. i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be. don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age. with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so.
maybe it's naive, maybe not. but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try. which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens. i believe we will cope.
Ever hear of Edward Snowden? Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'
As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine. It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident. Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.
My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios. In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations. In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design. These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile. Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.