Quote from: gmaxwell on December 01, 2015, 08:06:32 AM

Nothing wrong for paying for coffee with Bitcoin or even the bitcoin network. But to whatever extent there is a choice between monetary sovereignty and direct blockchain small retail sales-- the latter can be replaced using a lot of different mechanisms (for coffee? even centralized ones, for godssakes!); and the former cannot... I don't really think there is a fundamental mutual exclusion, but avoiding it will require being smarter, and not just cramming things in. Bitcoin: It's not a big truck.

Of more concern than "coffee" is transactions which have nothing to do with Bitcoin, transfer no Bitcoin value; and are just stuffing data into the bitcoin network because it's available; and some people have been going around selling the idea of ignoring the Bitcoin currency and saying that the system is just a big public database. This sort of stuff is out of scope for the Bitcoin system and endangers it survival when the cost of carting around a zillion 'stock transfer' zero value txouts overwhelms the public's interest in Bitcoin. ... and they've been a major driver for calls to remove Bitcoin's resource controls. I think totally separate assets need to have their own networks and fates, or otherwise one becomes an externalized cost on the other and can act as dead weight that removes the viability of the combined system.

I understand your points entirely. However, even if we make Bitcoin a system that is going to be used for very small everyday purchases like coffee, those don't necessarily have to be on the main chain. You don't need the strongest network in the world to secure your $1 purchase. This is one of the things that supporters of XT, BIP101, no limit/etc. have sometimes tried to use as a argument (not being able to buy coffee with small blocksize). I'm also aware of the concern of storing huge amounts of data on the blockchain which was not designed for that purpose and is very inefficient when it comes to that. How about something a few gigabytes in size? Wouldn't really work out in a efficient way.

To keep it short, someone of your expertise shouldn't waste too much time in this thread. People have been coming and going with very strong arguments, but the "opposing" side doesn't budge. Their way is the right way, or none is (not always, but often).