Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 06:48:20 AM

It’s a war of sustainability, which, I believe, the Core developers have solved by making design-decisions to make Bitcoin be more secure/robust, and more profitable for miners by capping the block size.

In no way to claim to be an expert about what the block size capping is meant to achieve, but seems to me that there is a bit of a desire for protecting from outside influences and spamming by causing it to become less incentivized to spam. Sure some people might say that small blocks can be spammed more easily, but there is a kind of balancing of incentives as well. Another aspect is having the mining and the monitoring of the whole blockchain to remain way more manageable and capable of being accessed by anyone. Can you imagine the difference between several terabytes of data.. whether crap or worthwhile data versus the access to the less than half of a terabyte of data (around 330 GB - currently as I type) that has built up as a result of more than 12 years of running bitcoin. That 330GB is way more manageable - especially considering how much value has been produced, transmitted and maintained through the past 12 years.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 06:48:20 AM

It has made utility limited though,

Of course, utility can be considered both in terms of types of utility and balancing, but then also in terms of prioritizing. So, I take the proclamations of "limited" utility with a BIG ASS grain of salt, because the mere fact that there is a system of decentralized finance through bitcoin that has never been established previously and there is no other system like it (which is another way of describing bitcoin as "paradigm" changing), and that should be more than enough conceptualized utility in bitcoin to accept that bitcoin is providing plenty of utility that can be accepted as an "as is" good enough situation rather than proclaiming that bitcoin is not doing enough blah blah blah. Bitcoin, "as is", should be understood as life changing and as a face melting phenomenon and there seems to be little to no reason to assert that it is not "utility" producing enough.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on Today at 06:48:20 AM

which the Lightning Network, or other off-chain networks might solve.

Of course, there are various systems that can be pegged to bitcoin that allow bitcoin to continue to produce its various kinds of foundational "utility" and other systems built on top or pegged to bitcoin can provide some of the desired "utility" of other kinds of systems.. whether we are talking about "micro-payments" or other kinds of speculated lacking "utility" that has not been completely defined, currently. Sure there may be a lot of kinds of utility that people have in mind and want to have provided on bitcoin or through bitcoin or pegged to bitcoin, and seems to be a whole hell of a lot of speculation that is able to be tested through nearly 10k various shitcoins out there.. and if those are successful, they might either be absorbed into bitcoin or somehow pegged to bitcoin and would not take away from the foundational value that bitcoin already provides and likely to continue to provide into the future that causes a security layer for the ability of a variety of shitcoins to play around with a variety of kinds of utility that may or may not be something that is wanted or needed in the present or in the future.

Surely, while in the midst of my response to you, Wind_FURY, I started to feel that quite a bit of my response here had quite largely deviated from the topic of this thread... so what to do about it? Only 4 more days to witness specifically how BIGGLY sgbett's 2/19/21 BTC price prediction has deviated from actual BTC price happenings. Cheesy

Another funny thing about such prediction is that even though he has been completely wrong, and maybe even by more than what some of the more "sgbett skeptical" of us would have anticipated, his most recent post in this thread appears that he is not really giving up on his stupid-ass ideas.. but like nutilah mentioned above, it seems quite likely that sgbett is NOT being genuine in his ongoing nonsensical assertions because anyone with even some small level of BTC related knowledge would not be so persistent in asserting such high levels of dumb - which makes a disingenuous label, in regards to sgbett positions and arguments, to be amongst the most plausible.