I am not against LN and SD, I am not against it being implemented at all. I just do not think we should change the economic policy of Bitcoin now unessarelly just because Bitcoin does not scale perfectly according to your ideals. In regards to me having a limited and close minded view, that is how I view your perspective so I suppose I am not offended.
I'm open to a 2 MB increase, to dynamic blocks, to payment channels, LN, sidechains, anything that make sense and is rational. This means that my view is not closed minded and thus your view of me is wrong. Albeit, you're not. In a "battle" between Segwit and 2 MB, where segwit is the clear winner (that carries many benefits), you stick to 2 MB without a proper argument to back it up.
I have been arguing on these forums extensively, you can not say that I do not have a proper argument, the underlying vision between Core and alternatives like Classic and Unlimited are very far apart, there is a divergence of vision. I choose for a two megabyte increase now because it is less complicated then segwit, ideally I would like to see a well vetted version of segwit applied together with a increased blocksize applied as a hard fork. However segwit is not ready yet now and we need to start the process of increasing the blocksize sooner rather then later, before we hit the economic change event that Jeff Garzick warned us about.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.htmlBitcoin does not make sense from an engineering perspective, but it does make a lot of sense in a human way. It makes certain technical sacrifices in terms of efficiency in favor of political and or ideological goals of freedom and decentralization. Concepts of democracy and decentralization might be very inefficient. However they are better for very human reasons, based on our subjective ethics.
This is not relevant to my statement. Albeit I'd argue if Bitcoin loses a good part of its decentralization that the main purpose behind it was lost.
Then you need to argue how increasing to two megabyte increases centralization. Which is obviously not the case in any significant way. The opposite might be true by helping to decentralize development.
I do not think that your vision of Bitcoin will be more decentralized or secure. Payment channels will still be possible on a more unrestricted Bitcoin, and of course can be used for the appropriate use cases. You view is limited and restricted, I am saying that Bitcoin can do it all. We do not have to choose between features, that would be a false dichotomy.
More decentralized? I have not stated this.
You say all the time that increasing the blocksize leads to centralization, you even implied it in your last quote.
I have stated that LN is decentralized and secure which is correct; you can't be the judge of this because you don't have a technical background as you've said, right? If anything Bitcoin will be very centralized if we focus on scaling via the block size. You can't deny this.
I have spend most of my time learning about Bitcoin over the last year, with a background in the humanities I have a more unique perspective on these events. I can decide for my self what my vision for Bitcoin is. I could critique LN in terms of decentralization, there are pros and cons to using it. I can critique the rules even if I do not know how it is coded. I have nothing against LN as long as the Bitcoin blockchain is not unnecessarily restricted.