Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

Nobodies opinion can ever be invalid, I have presented arguments which you have not disproven or countered. You are using a strawman argument again, I support an increase blocksize because I think that is what will maximize decentralization and financial freedom over the long run.

Of course it can. You have presented me with nothing but assumptions and claims of what you think is going to happen. Scaling via the block size limit in the long run can do nothing but centralize Bitcoin.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

Users leaving because of fees is not competitive or a good user experience, it seems like you are failing to recognize this.

I could care less about the user experience, that is not my job. My point stands, you could just acknowledge it and we could move on. The fees would keep correcting themselves.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

That is not a argument.

Of course it is; you have not certainly studied Logic it seems.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

You can say that it is not true, but it is not true until it happens, and what would you say then? That is clear however, I do not think we will be able to agree any time soon then if you truly believe that, might explain why you are still hanging on here. I seriously suggest you learn more about political thought. To say that you disagree with the wisdom of the crowd means that you might even support a technocracy or some other form of tyranny.

One of the first things that I've learned about, in Sociology, is that the crowd is anything but wise, and the types of crowd control. Of course I disagree with the "wisdom of this crowd"; Rule 1. Never follow the sheep.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

You are completely proving my point here, if you can not acknowledge the fundamental game theory principles at work here then you do not understand Bitcoin.

I never said I didn't.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

Bitcoin is build on top of the internet which is why those should be considered the base layers first. Like it was said before, Bitcoin can be considered at least beyond layer three or four.

You are using everything in the wrong way and have failed to answer the question in regards to http/https. You're supposed to observe Bitcoin as a independant system and determine what layer the blockchain would be at (obviously layer 1), not what internet layer Bitcoin operates at.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

There is a clear contradiction here, it is alright to sometimes be wrong, I am often wrong myself and when I am, I acknowledge it, even on these forums.

You aren't doing it often enough, you're wrong most of the time.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

You are just twisting words here, something that is not safe is unsafe, we can argue semantics here but I will stand by that point.

Safe, potentially unsafe, unsafe. It's simple really, albeit I'd further divide it.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

I do not see much balance in your approach, increasing to two megabytes would be a simple compromise to make yet you see it as being take over and centralizing attack on Bitcoin, yet segwit is fine? That really does not make any sense to me, your position lacks consistency.

It's simple actually. What are the benefits of 2 MB blocks and what are the benefits of segwit if we exclude the increase in TPS? If your answer to the first question is nothing (it should be, you can't change this fact), then we have a clear winner. Time to move on.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 06, 2016, 11:43:44 PM

if human stupidity, arrogance and the so called crowd "wisdom" can succeed in deploying a political hard fork, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.

FTFY.