You know, it says a lot when your opponents resort to attacking you rather than your ideas:
Honestly Peter, to be blunt I long ago concluded you're just working backwards from your preferred outcome. You don't want Bitcoin to scale up, and you will continue to invent ever more convoluted and baseless theories as to why it can't, until the end of time. Convincing you doesn't seem to be possible.
You know before I read this I had a question mark pop up when Peter brought up chaum signatures in one of these threads. I didn't see an immediate connection to a solution. Considering he wrote a
detailed post on Chaum banks I wondered if personal preference was part of his outlook for the block size issue.
In
the post I quoted Mike Hearn from he directly addressed your arguments. I have done so as well.
I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not anyone's opponent. I'm looking at all possible avenues - cap, no cap, dynamic cap, etc. - objectively. However, I think it's also helpful to put all information, including suspicions on opinions, out in the open. Please feel free to do the same for me, for example.