Your distrust in the marketplace of ideas is noted, so too is your reluctance to accept that truth will withstand scrutiny on its own merits as fallacy will fail on its lack of them.
I'm done rewarding your sophism for now.You're conveniently ignoring the reality that reading, parsing, evaluating and responding to ideas requires an expenditure of scarce resources.
When people use sockpuppets, they can increase the resource expenditure of the people they are debating without increasing their own.
Debates involving anonymous parties is highly susceptible to denial of service attacks.
A person using anonymous sockpuppets can bombard the debate with multiple, contradictory positions in a way that they wouldn't be able to get away with if they had to attach the same identity to all their arguments.
It's a bullshit way to engage in a debate of this nature, and shows a profound disrespect for the positions they argue against, as well as insulting the intelligence of everyone involved by pretending that what they're doing isn't obvious.
You are free to use all the anonymous communication you want. You don't get to force people to pay attention to what you have to say.
If you're not willing to pay an accountability price for your arguments, then don't be surprised when other people are not willing to take on the cognitive burden of paying attention to them.
Who said anything about let's "force people to pay attention to what you have to say?" Nobody, that's who. I'll take my "sophism" over your "making shit up" anyday.
I was discussing the marketplace of ideas, and your lack of faith in its ability to reward truth and penalize fallacy. Alone, you certainly do not have the capacity to bear the cognitive burden of dealing with "reading, parsing, evaluating and responding to" every idea in that market. But it is easier to create new proxies (Sybil attack) than arguments, so by ignoring the particular alleged identies of the multitudes of individual messengers (instead of running ID verification/background checks on each one) we can better focus our limited resources on the general/aggregate content their messages.
Of course there are trade-offs with anonymous communication. Satoshi, Citizenfour, and Publius demonstrate those trade-offs are ultimately desirable.
Still nothing to say about defining decentralization being prioritized higher than overcapacity? I guess we don't need to worry about defining our crypto-terms so much after all. Your throwaway reference to the economic (IE non-software, non-bitcoin) sense of "overcapacity" doesn't count (unless you really meant to imply any rise in tx fee indicates shortage of capacity).
