I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.
If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.
You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?" All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.
Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?" All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.
Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.
Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.
I'm guessing you don't quite understand the nuances behind the idea icebreaker is trying to lead you to.. or maybe you outright disagree. Here is Peter Wuille's version of the same logic:
I see centralization and scalability as a trade-off, and for better or for worse, the block chain only offers one trade-off. I want to see technology
built on top that introduces lower levels of trust than typical fully centralized systems, while offering increased convenience, speed, reliability, and scale. I just don't think that all of that can happen on the lowest layer without hurting everything built on top. We need different trade-offs, and the blockchain is just one, but a very fundamental one.