You obviously do not know what agree to disagree means, I obviously think your position is invalided and incorrect, not necessarily wrong in the ethical sense, and also not necessarily wrong in an empirical sense either since we are dealing with subjective ideologies.
Of course I do. Your opinion is invalid due to the fact that you'd support a centralization just to transact on the main chain. You're talking about it like it's some kind of big deal when you compare it to the second layer; it is not.
I find it hard to fathom why you think that Bitcoin does not need to compete with other cryptocurrencies and alternatives, Bitcoin does not exist inside of a ivory tower, which I think much of your thinking is indicative off. The price to transact does matter and so does the user experience.
This is a straw man. This has nothing to do with my statement that the fees would correct themselves due to users joining and leaving. Similar does apply to mining it should be always marginally profitable.
I consider not increasing the blocksize the equivalent of crippling Bitcoin.
If you consider a horse to be a unicorn, does that make it one? What you consider something to be does not change the nature of what it is.
If you think that the will of the economic majority can kill the system with naivety then we have some fundamental disagreements about the merits of the collective wisdom of the crowd. Which I do think Bitcoin is fundamentally beholden towards.
If anything, the crowd has no wisdom, the crowd is ignorant and foolish at best (have you studied sociology at all?). Besides there is no "economic majority" that support an increase nor a HF away from Core. No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it is not going to become true.
Again you are not answering my question. I will be more specific. Take Democracy for example, as a political system it is very inefficient, however its advantages are worth the inefficiencies for ethical and ideological reasons. You seem to be ignoring these very important human principles when weighing up paths and visions for Bitcoins future. Bitcoin is more then just a robotic machine, human beings are a part of this machine, with their emotions, fears and even irrationality. I think that you are failing to take this into account, this is the very game theory that the Bitcoin of today relies on for its continued operation.
I could care less for humans, their emotions, fears and stupidity. What is the question here again?
You should try and embrace talking to people outside of your field of expertise. I might not be an expert in this field however after looking this up more it does seem like layer three is the best analogy for Bitcoin, since it is the network layer, not layer one or two. Since they already exist as the internet within a certain extend. So my argument comparing Bitcoin to the Internet Protocol still holds.
It doesn't. Layer three can't operate without layer two or one. If anything, Bitcoin would be considered layer one (LN and sidechains layer two and so on). Guess where the widely used protocols are (e.g. https, https); they must be on the first one right?
You are now creating a circular argument, which one is it, orphan rates will be significant enough to act as a force for smaller blocks, or there is no reason not to include transactions with lower fees? Which one is it? Both can not be true, you have clearly contradicted yourself here.
I mentioned orphan rates; I never said that they would force smaller blocks. You're taking things out of context.
If that is your position on segwit then I suppose you do not support any solution to scaling? I know that this is not true, since you did say you supported segwit in favor of a blocksize increase. So you are saying that you support an unsafe complex change to the network but we should not support a simple change to the network because it is unsafe? Can you see the contradiction in your statements?
If I haven't stated that segwit is safe (which would be a ignorant statement; your precious HF and 2 MB blocks aren't safe either), that does not mean that I called it unsafe. There are no perfect solutions; we balance out the pros and cons and then decide. Obviously Segwit is a tad complex (or a lot, depending on your knowledge and intellect; some even compared it to an altcoin), but it is being worked on from many aspects and views (e.g. P. Todd suggested something recently that would reduce the 'risks' even further).