What is the mysterious "some other agenda" you are talking about? If my summation "quite clearly reveals" it, the specifics shouldn't be very hard for you to elaborate. 
The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."
You are of course aware the radical transparency and real-time accounting/auditing enabled by blockchains in general is all the rage. So why does it fall upon me to spoon feed you common knowledge as if you are five years old?
The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."
You are of course aware the radical transparency and real-time accounting/auditing enabled by blockchains in general is all the rage. So why does it fall upon me to spoon feed you common knowledge as if you are five years old?
You don't ask questions because you want answers. Your questions are devices used to restate another persons argument in such a way that you can then make arguments against them which cannot be refuted. By doing this you are attempting to create the illusion that your arguments actually refute what the other person said (as opposed to your mischaracterisation of what they said).
As this is a generalisation, your immediate reaction is to then go away and discover a single incident where this did not happen, and then argue that because this didn't happen one time, it never happens.
You use the same pattern here, without a question.
Quote
The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."
[The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important] - Yes exact names are not important.
[only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."] - you attempt to establish the credibility of this statement by contrasting it against the absurd.
This is a recurring theme, and it is the whole basis of your argument. You craft entire walls of text specifically designed to give the impression that you are of superior intellect, and that the other person is a buffoon. You think that by doing this you increase the legitimacy of your position. You do not.
This is the subtlety that you are missing: "Let each thing stand on its own merit"
This applies equally to LN / Sidechains as it does to your own self.
Sometimes one is just plain wrong. Acknowledging this is more important than being right.
For example, your handwaving over full blocks. I likened them to Rome Burning for a very good reason. Full blocks and a constantly increasing mempool cause significant problems. Maybe you should look into it, its the thing that most concerned me and I think is the biggest motivation for making sure that full blocks don't happen.
Peter R's paper, demonstrating the block size is self limiting, puts a fork in it! (so to speak)
It isn't me that is trolling ICE. I post what I believe to be true, based on what I have read, and learned and understood. I think there is a difference between us though: I know I might be wrong, and if I am, I'll be fine about it.
My God, you complain more than an old woman.
Of course your victimological dissembling allows you to once again sidestep unanswered questions about your misconstrual of davout's statement. How could you possibly translate "everyone gets to benefit" into "moral bankruptcy" and well being coming "at the expense of others?" If you could clear up that mystery, it would be great.Your exaggerated likening of full blocks to Rome Burning® is hysterical hyperbole. Even Gavin says full blocks won't cause the sky to fall.
The "significant problems" you mention have even more significant solutions, in the form of better node/pool/mine configurations, smarter wallet software, RBF, fee market incubation, and pressure on SC/LN development. That's how antifragile works, and will continue to work as Layer 2 is built out.
Another amusing effect of antifragile: nobody cares about a few Quixotic Gavinistas tilting at the block size.
How anything can be a mystery to someone of such overwhelming intelligence is the real puzzle here. Sidestepped again, oh woe is me. It's not my job to explain your own view to you. Only you can bring yourself to your senses, you've proved countless times that you won't hear reason from anyone else.
The thrust of the Rome Burning metaphor is not the fact that Rome burns, but that you are Nero
...and gavin said what now?
There is a very good blog post by David Hudson at hashingit.com analyzing what will happen on the network as we approach 100% full blocks. Please visit that link for full details, but basically he points out there is a mismatch between when transactions are created and when blocks are found and that mismatch means very bad things start to happen on the network as the one megabyte limit is reached.