Peter, what is your opinion here:
Should complementary off-chain solutions develop organically on their own merits, taking loading off the Bitcoin blockchain, or should Bitcoin be crippled in the hope and expectation that complementary services develop around it faster?
Making the blocksize large as a solution will cripple Bitcoin with centralization and lack of anonymity.
The most revolutionary thing about Bitcoin is that it is a truly decentralized store of value; 1MB will be enough to act as a store of value for the forseeable future.
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.
If you want to sink to that level, fine.
What does Mike's employer, Google, stand to gain from large blocks that only large companies can afford to process and validate? What does Google stand to gain from a system where every last transaction is recorded on a public blockchain, ripe for datamining? Mike after all works for a company that has a "real names" policy and actively tries to ensure users can-not use its services anonymously. Keep in mind Mike is also being paid by Google to work on Bitcoin; 20% time projects, while often speculative, are approved by management and must relate to Google's business interests in some fashion.