Hmm... In terms of philosophy the earth is obviously flat because otherwise things would fall off the bottom, there's more than one way of looking at the points he's made but he doesn't seem to be seeing them. That's true for RBF but his points on InstantX are a better example, he says it'll be broken because you cant make instant decisions on a distributed network but seems blind to the obvious, the decision on how that instant transaction will be performed has been made before the transaction is carried out, the small group of masternodes that can make a secure decision very quickly have already been selected so if/when a transaction is performed its locked in a fraction of a second.

You want to see centralisation of a distributed network, here it is, a small group making decisions on big issues without consulting the big group effected by those decisions. Noahs post was the first I'd really heard of RBF and I've been assuming the obvious, that the recipients address cant be changed, just the fee and that anything else would be detected as a double spend and would be dropped or possibly included as a return with a timelock as a deterrent.

Allowing re-direction is crazy and walks right over existing uses, accepting confirmationless transactions is bad practice but it's not up to a small few to police how the network is used, at this stage it can be considered a public resource so it's up to them to maintain it on behalf of the users. The trustless aspect of Bitcoin only refers to usage, not to the fundamentals of its operation and this is a change to those fundementals, plenty of users have been caught out with mistakes when pressing "send" but plenty more have been caught out pressing "send" on an email,, its just the way it works and we wise up and don't do it again, the nanny stuff goes into the application, not into the network. But hey, maybe its time for a re-think on that 21 million thing...