My quoted link explains that it is just an illusion of decentralization. It is by now already centralized, as evident by China+Blockstream making the decision to kill XT and Classic (i.e. a form of 51% attack control).
lol, you complain about centralization and in the same sentence complain about not getting bigger blocks. That's a contradiction because bigger blocks cause even more centralization.
Your views are invalid.
You are referring to
my post at this link.
1. I didn't complain about not getting larger blocks. Someone else did and I was responding to their erroneous assertion that Blockstream is against larger blocks.
2. I am making the point that Bitcoin can't be scaled up for higher transaction rates without being centralized. Others have argued that Lightning Networks can scale up transaction rate off chain with smaller blocks, but they are mistaken.
3. Actually "larger" blocks do not force centralization if you have the correct design which I have devised, but Satohi's design can't achieve it.
A friendly warning to you. I am much more expert than you apparently realize.
You're talking out of your ass. Your coins' design doesn't change your bandwidth. Crypto does not scale no matter how much you wish it. We'll be using many different chains in the future and other workarounds. The only tokens being able to scale are the centralized ones, but that's not a crypto.
People won't be fooled.