Quote from: alani123 on March 14, 2016, 03:58:03 PM

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph on March 14, 2016, 03:10:31 PM

Claiming to know what Bitcoin is used for and what it is not used for. We don't need no government to decide how many people need to use bitcoin. If you love to be a central planner, you might want to look for a job in governmental administration.

Fun fact, nobody is controlling this even now. The demand for bitcoin use hasn't to this day surpassed the limit of transactions that can be processed by bitcoin's network (aside of stress tests of course). But the sad truth is that bitcoin can't scale. No matter how bigger the network gets, this limit to transactions will always be there, for a robust, scalable technologies to be based on bitcoin though, the network's size would need to remain stable in order for them to be able to count on it. Increasing the block size destroys the potential for such technologies to be based on bitcoin as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing. This kind of centralization brings interest away from bitcoin.

The amount of illogic sold as logic scales very well in this place.

Quote

But the sad truth is that bitcoin can't scale. No matter how bigger the network gets ...

You realize how stupid this sentence is? Bitcoin can scale. We just need to raise to blocksize to, let's say, 4 mb, and bitcoin quadrupled it's transaction capacity. That proofs it can scale.

What you mean is: Bitcoin can't scale "to infinity". That may be true to some degree but everything but important if you have other interests than thworing big red herrings around. As I said above:

Quote

If we ever need this space that there will be now way around some kind of centralization, be it lightning, sidechains or blocksize. And, to be honest, if we are in this scenario, a big blocksize may be NOT the most centralized vision.

Ah, and about this

Quote

for a robust, scalable technologies to be based on bitcoin though, the network's size would need to remain stable in order for them to be able to count on it. Increasing the block size destroys the potential for such technologies to be based on bitcoin as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing. This kind of centralization brings interest away from bitcoin.

That's a chain of bs based on the flawed assumption that every blocksize-increase is an increase of centralization - and even if this is assumed true it remains a chain of bs without any proof.

But remarkable is this

Quote

as it's guaranteed to decrease the numbers of participants in the network and centralize transaction processing

That's a proof of brainwashing. Neither is there a guarantee that a capacity increase will decrease the number of participants significantly, nor that there will be a transaction processing centralization. The opposite - if we drive transactions offchain we will see a transaction processing centralization, be it really offchain (payment providers) or with lightning or sidechains. Only onchain transactions are decentralized. That you attack those who wants to keep bitcoin transaction processing decentralized as agents of centralization shows how deeply you made double speak your mother language while not even knowing it.