Handling the amount of Visa transactions of 2015, by 2032, will make Bitcoin obsolete then because it will not be able to handle enough volume (i.e. BIP101 solves nothing).
You claim that increasing the blocksize according to the schedule outlined in BIP101 solves nothing yet it does increases the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain by a factor of eight thousand, compared to where it is now over a period of twenty years. Practically this makes a huge difference, the solution does not need to be perfect, be careful to not fall into the trap of the engineers nirvana fallacy.
[/quote]
So you're telling me that we should choose this "solution" just because it changes the amount of volume that Bitcoin can process even though there is a better solution (LN)? That makes, no sense at all.
you *seriously* beleive that a major bitcoin exchange does not operate thier own node? Something that can be achieved for <$100 with a standalone device and uses <64GB of storage?
get real. you can buy a 1TB harddrive for $50 today and store BIP101-enabled blockchain onto it for years to come. then pay $50 more for a 4TB drive to handle a few more years of growth. or are you still using the same computer you owned in 1999 with its 1.6GHz singlecore, 512MB ram, and 60GB HDD (all cutting edge)?
Ah yes, the classic
argumentum ad Amazon fallacy, wherein some fuckwit proffers his worthless opinion of the form 'hurr durr cheap harddrives amirite.'
You still don't understand the primary constraint on larger blocks is upstream bandwidth/verification latency (not storage)?
-snip-
Everyone in the world has access to Amazon prices and everyone in the world has money to spare on big HDD(s) and high speed internet. This logic is definitely not flawed.

We should not restrict anyone from being able to run a node, nor should we make it much harder (somewhat is acceptable) for those that already are running them, just because a group of 'scoundrel' want to pay for their coffee using Bitcoin.