This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.
These quotes are irrelevant and outdated. You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact, but that is pointless. Let me show you an example of a recent and quick calculation that I've made.
Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
It is reasonable to assume that the average transactions per person per day would be between 5 - 10 (minimum) if Bitcoin was used for everyday purchases. You're talking about 3 500 GB of unnecessary data
per day. This can be avoided with second layer solutions. Another problem with you is that you see LN as an alternative coin, but it is not even remotely close to that.
you not talking about today.. you are using an example of bitcoin in many many years..
its like trying to describe netflix to someone in the 1980s and telling them its impossible to have netflix then.. hello wake up.. in 30 years it will be possible.. technology grows. so will bitcoin. bitcoin will not have 700m users in 2 years. so dont use a calculation of a 30year utopian dream as your bases to discredit todays community needs of just 2mb+segwit(effectively 4mb)