It's easy as shit to dispute his arguments. He's basically claiming that if the blocks ever fill up, then Bitcoin has failed. Since Bitcoin can't scale to world reserve currency without really fucking big blocks (133MB with lightning network and way higher without it), it's pretty much guaranteed to have full blocks and a fee market no matter what you do. While I do think Bitcoin needs at least 8MB blocks to remove most of the glass ceiling on price, his logic is not sound at all about it succeeding or failing based on blocks being full or not.
That post might impress Bitcoin noobs into thinking there's some type of crisis, but blocks becoming full was always destined to happen from day 1. The real issue is that Lightning Network does not exist TODAY, and so blocks should be raised so that Bitcoin has more room to grow until that happens, assuming Lightning Network is even the solution to all our problems in the first place. The way I see it, a collateral bid, deterministic block production system with something like 1001 fixed block producers is the only low hanging fruit I see to solve decentralization and on-chain scaling at the moment:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1317450.0I am intersted in the bit where he talks about reversing payments. is what he seems to be saying actually true? if the seller of the goods waits for say 4 confirms does that not still protect him. if it is going to be common place for reversals (double spend) then people will always opt for credit cards and the protection they provide and not move to using bitcoin as much?