AnonyMint thank you so much for this video. This is coming from a guy who has been into ETH from day one. You may remember me from Reddit. I was the first one to bring up this issue on their thread. (Sorry again for the drama queen remark), I never sold my stake, but it did cause me concern that nobody took your analysis seriously. Instead you were called a scammer. Not cool for a community that prides itself on being different from this cesspool. As of now, I sold all my ETH. I would love to reinvest, but I am not satisfied that Ethereum is future proof. I am done with cryptos for the time being, so my money is going back to Silver. I will keep an eye out for your project, but this is it for me. Take care trolls, shills, pumpers, dumpers, traders, devs, investors, bagholders, and Shelby. 
Doesn't sound like a real story to me. Sounds like something you completely made up.
stoat. All you have to do is look at my post history on reddit (farage11) to see I was a fanboy for well over a year. You can also check my history and see that I went all in a few months ago after selling my IPO during the last run up in August. I could care less what you think. Imo, you are nothing more than a unkowledagble shill who badgers AnonyMint with sticks and stones, while he comes back with nukes. Your incessant shilling is juvenile. Name once where you have countered AnonyMints analysis with technical verbiage? Not once! You think people can't read your rebuttals? Show us your techical accumen and put AnonyMint in his place. Show us... that's what I thought. You are out of your depth, and that fact is a fact. Take care stoat, and know thyself. Something tells me that may be harder to attain then ETH's scaling problem.
Can you explain anonymints technical complaint as you understand it? Because not one time has he explained it clearly and unobscurely. And also explain why EXACTLY it is a completely unsolvable problem? My reading comprehension is second to none and I'm university educated, I have no problems understanding everything else I read but I can't seem for the life of me, able to reach that "aha moment" when anonymint explains this "completely unsolvable problem".
What was your "aha moment"? And can you explain how you arrived at it.
Being someone with first hand experience, and the technical knowledge to present challenges to TPTB's arguments when applicable, I can tell you its just too damn painful to do so.
No developer worth any salt is going to engage with him because it simply devolves into name calling if you don't align with his thoughts. Before long the n00b, b-lister, you are not worthy comments start regardless of if he's right or not and its just a noisy waste of time. The discussion ends in a blaze of fire with one of the parties leaving, usually it's not TPTB that has departed (he can argue all damn day) so it "looks" from the outside that he won, even if in reality his "facts" are wrong.
These days I'd rather go and pull my own teeth with a set of pliers than engage in any kind of discussion because its a less painful experience.
You could simply say where he is wrong, bringing infos, arguments and facts. I'm somebody without much knowledge about the tech, that's why I read discussions about it. My impression in general is (and over months) that there is a lack of controversial discussions about ETH. It's nearly always about the price. My questions about Casper, just for example, were never replied - in no topic.
This is the first thread I know of that focusses on the technical side and the lonterm-potential and if ETH can be what it is aimed to be. And I don't believe that one side is completely right and the other side is totally wrong, but what I see is: All the concerns in this thread are not rebutted yet.
He very well might be correct, but its a difficult task to figure it out as everything from him is a brain dump wall of text, with added shouting.
Not to mention that he changes his mind on things frequently, one day something isn't possible, then it is, then he has invented the best thing since slice bread relating to the issue at hand, then it isn't possible again.
Simply put, partitions for transactions are possible (we've done it, both with a block chain and with a ledger). Block chain based partitions are inefficient, ledger based partitions are not. ETH will be hard pressed to scale transactions with partitions on a block chain in excess of 2k+ tps, we've had public tests of partitioned ledgers nearing 3k tps (anyone is welcome to come and test it), and small WAN tests up to 10k+tps and I'm still not finished.
Partitions with scripts/contacts are a different kettle of fish, depending on the architecture, this may or may not be possible and the jury is still out on it.
The main issue is that you have a lot more data, or states, and have to ensure that there are no cross-partition conflicts of those states.
Further adding to the issue is that the states can be arbitrary, and a script/contract can have many of them. In the case of a transaction it is defined in the core protocol what the state of a transaction is and how that transaction can behave. With a script/contract you don't have that luxury as they can define their own states, sub-states and sub-protocols depending on the functionality.