Here you are disagreeing with limiting the transaction size. (limiting it to 1MB is implied, just to be sure you understand, the current limit is 1MB because the blocksize is 1MB and therefore a transaction larger than 1MB doesn't fit).
What was meant is that I'm against additional imposed limitations in order to favor a HF. I'm undecided about TX size as there haven't been that many discussions about it.
-snip-
and here you are disagreeing with increasing the block size.
Listing cons of something != disagreeing with it. There is likely going to be some headroom with Segwit, where an additional increase of 1-2 MB may be okay. I'm still waiting for Luke-Jr's proposal.
So even though those statements weren't direct quotes (I never implied they were quotes), I can proof that they align with your statements. Therefore you are contradicting yourself, and falsely accusing me of lying.
Taking things out of context in other to strengthen your position is what one would usually define a lying manipulator as.
And yet, that's exactly what bitcoin is doing right now.
No, that's not what Bitcoin "is doing right now". Bitcoin can't do anything on its own as Bitcoin isn't an entity that can decide for itself. In addition to that, the analogy is false since the limit in currently a safeguard from the DOS risk at 2 MB or higher.
Not enough time for what? Verifying with an abacus?
I'll even risk by saying that enthusiast grade hardware will not be able to validate a sigop expensive 20 MB block in time. Someone would need to test this out to confirm though.