Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

I think the way the scalability problem is "left" unresolved does support conspiracy theory of how AXA , etc. has bought over bitcoin.

That conspiracy theory is categorically false. A lot of your "questions" are things that are leftovers from Satoshi's designs that require a hard fork to change, and we are hesitant to have hard forks willy nilly.

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

1) allowing poweful hardware to having mining advantage is simply against distributed consensus.

That is a natural progression of technological advancement. A Proof of Work system will always result in an arms race of who can get the best and fastest mining hardware. It doesn't matter whether it's CPUs, GPUs, or ASICs. Those who have the most money to sink into building massive mining farms are those who are going to have an advantage. Proof of Stake isn't any better (in fact it's worse and has several of its own severe issues).

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

There is no need to have transfer fees, incentives, etc, to motivate these mining conglomerates.

Why is there no need? We need fees and the block subsidy to incentivize miners to continue to mine and secure the blockchain. Without them, mining would not have had a start at all and there would be no incentive to mine blocks. Remove those incentives now and miners will have no incentive to continue to mine blocks, so mining will stop.

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

If the next day, their rigs are all destroyed - it is better for bitcoin; there are million of desktops in India, Indonesia, China who would willingly do the mining provided

They would, if there were an incentive to do that. There is no incentive to continue to mine (and expend energy and money) if there were no incentives. Furthermore, the difficulty of mining is so high that the combined computational power of people's desktops is likely not enough to mine blocks at the current pace. Not only that, but people also want to be able to use their computers to do other things too, so you can't expect everyone to dedicate all of their computing power to mining. Having the difficulty this high has benefits too; it makes performing attacks much much harder. Having a high difficulty means that the blockchain is very secure; it is extremely expensive and computationally difficult to rewrite history. That is a good thing.

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

the protocol is design to have one-node-one-vote.

While have "one node one vote" is a great idea in theory, reality tells us that this is basically impossible. Nearly all Proof of Work algorithms have been shown to be performed on GPUs, so in order for "one node one vote", every node would need to have several powerful GPUs to mine. Furthermore, as technology gets better, it is likely that such algorithms will eventually have ASICs built for them; nothing is really ASIC resistant.

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

As of now, you cannot stop others to think the "open source" developers have not been bought.

And you cannot stop me from telling you that such statements are wrong and very harmful to the community. Furthermore you have provided no evidence that "the developers have been bought", just nonsense that shows you don't understand how this system works.

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

Myth: bitcoin does not have the drawback of fiat money - the total BTC number is 21 million.
The developers could change the codes tomorrow to allow 1000 million BTC in 2140!

No they could not. Such a change requires a hard fork and requires all miners and users to upgrade their software to support that. It is highly unlikely that the Bitcoin Core developers would be able to convince the entire Bitcoin community to adopt such a change.

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

They could then sweet talk about how it would benefit bitcoin, etc.

The Bitcoin Core developers have been horrifically bad at "sweet talking" people into doing what they want. Look at how long it took to activate segwit; if the developers could "sweet talk" people into doing what they want, why wasn't segwit activated as soon as possible? For that matter, why haven't all forks activated as soon as they could (CSV did not, CLTV did not, etc.)? The Bitcoin Core developers would not be able to "sweet talk" anybody into doing anything; they're good with code, not words.

Quote from: thinair on November 01, 2017, 04:42:38 PM

It is still all politics. This myth is very good to bring in those who have been told the evil of fiat money. But now, we have these "open source" central bankers deciding on the money supply.

Except those central bankers don't decide on Bitcoin or its money supply and you have provided no evidence to back up your claim, just nonsense statements that are clearly false.

Quote from: thecryptogiant on November 04, 2017, 08:17:49 PM

Yes absolutely correct but why the dev team donot want to increase the block size to 2mb and why are they opposing.

The maximum block size was already increased with Segwit to 4 MB. Segwit2x saying that it increases the block size to 2 MB is completely false; it increases the block size to at most 8 MB. To say that it does not is false and lying. The absolute size of blocks currently have already exceeded 1 MB since segwit activated.

The Bitcoin Core developers have already stated why they are opposing Segwit2x. It has been widely published already. I'll give you a quick run down:

The fork was done extremely hastily with little to no apparent testing or preparation
The fork does not do anything that is on the hard fork wishlist to fix any of the bugs that currently exist in Bitcoin that require a hard fork to fix. It literally does one thing, but hard forks should include as many things as possible to reduce the need to fork again later
8 MB blocks are currently too large for the network to handle. They are still vulnerable to several attacks and makes those attacks worse. 8 MB blocks will increase the requirements for running a node (more computing power, network bandwidth, storage space, etc.) and as such will likely decrease the already fairly low node count.
We have only recently activated Segwit and we don't know how that will effect Bitcoin and the economy. We should wait for Segwit to be actively used and assess later whether a further block size increase is necessary.