For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once. When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.
This is observably and provably false to any objective observer, as this thread is laden with my citations
I love how I pointed out that much of your citations is you citing yourself, and in response you proceed to do exactly that. Hilarious.
bitcoin will ultimately because a settlement system for major players and will not be scaled as a coffee money.
I used to believe this point completely. I agree with the first part, and I do agree that Bitcoin will never be scaled as a coffee money. That said, there is a middle ground between "settlement system for major players only" and "coffee money" that Bitcoin can achieve, and eventually this choice will become self-evident (but maybe too late). For example, $2 per transaction does not restrict Bitcoin to major players only, but is also not usable for coffee money, a target that I have reason to believe is achievable.
The reason the choice will become self-evident is simple - Currently it costs a minimum of roughly 0.01 BTC per month to operate a node(based on bandwidth, hdd costs alone), and ~0.0003 BTC to reliably send transactions to use that node. Over time technology improves, adoption increases, and crypto prices rise, which causes the cost of operating a static-blocksize node to fall dramatically and the cost of sending a transaction to rise dramatically, with no growth limits on either number. Without blocksize increases, it will eventually cost more to operate a node for one month than it costs to send a single transaction, at which point home users will stop running nodes anyway because they are not using Bitcoin, which defeats the only reason we would arbitrarily keep node operational costs low in the first place.
The solution is simple - we have to stop thinking of acceptable node operational costs in terms of dollars and instead think of acceptable node operational costs in terms of BTC/month. What exactly qualifies as an acceptable node operational cost per month is highly debatable, but changing the math/thinking in that way changes the problem entire. It allows growth that can almost completely offset increased transaction demand. It won't lower tx fee costs - I think they still have to rise a bit - but it prevents them from going exponential or locking out home users.