The pattern goes like this:  Every time I don't agree with franky1's attempts to completely distort and butcher the definition of a word, he claims I don't believe in or don't support that thing.

He did it with 'consensus'.  Because I don't accept his entirely made-up and sociopathic definition of consensus (i.e. "everyone has to ask franky1's consent before they can code anything"), he says I don't believe in consensus.  I absolutely do believe in consensus, which I interpret as "everyone can code and run what they want.  Those running compatible code will be matched up with people who want the same thing and they'll build a network together".  I would argue that reality more closely reflects my definition than franky1's definition in terms of how Bitcoin and the various forkcoins work, but I'll leave you and anyone else reading this to be the judge of that.

And now he's trying to do the same with 'scaling'.  He means "linear growth" but he says "scaling" as if that were somehow the sole extent of what scaling means.  He will *only* accept "linear growth" and point-blank refuses to accept any other forms of scaling.  Some would argue that repeated linear growth doesn't even count as scaling.  Perhaps if I were in a charitable mood, I might call it weak scaling at best.  I'm not entirely opposed to *some* linear growth, but I don't think doing it forever (like he does) is remotely viable and I would only endorse it when those securing the network are prepared to carry that additional load.  It's certainly not a "solution" to the problem and there are serious trade-offs to consider.  

Scaling primarily occurs when technology advances and there's a noticeable difference in performance.  People don't run multiple dial-up connections, they use things like fibre optics and 5g, because technology got better.  People don't carry hundreds of 1.44mb floppy disks to make data portable, they use USB sticks and mobile phones / cellphones, because technology got better.  That's what scaling looks like in reality.  But franky1 is seemingly always at odds with reality and just wants to play make-believe and be a pathological liar.  He just wants to take the "carry more floppy disks" approach.  It's asinine when technology has far greater potential.  Yet he resists every attempt to explore such options.

And I just don't have the patience for that kind of childish nonsense anymore.  Engaging with him is a waste of your time.  All he will do is lie to you and then berate you when you eventually disagree with his bizarre and unrealistic delusions.  Given enough encounters with franky1, sooner or later, everyone will tire of his toxic and obnoxious behaviour.  And for that reason, he's not a threat.  He'll go through life gradually alienating everyone he comes across.  To the point where literally no one will listen to his insane technobabble anymore.  That's why he's now on my ignore list.  That's the sum extent of what he has to offer.  Lies, delusions and toxic behaviour.  Literally nothing of value.