| I feel like you're not engaging in a good faith discussion here. Above you falsely accused me of dishonestly misrepresenting the initial capacity limit. I believe I demonstrated in an objective and indisputably way that you were mistaken. Rather than acknowledging your error about Bitcoin and the inappropriate insult, you've simply changed the subject. What purpose is there to continuing the discussion if you're going to do that? > clearly intended for this to be a temporary limit This is in a thread with him loudly urging people to NOT change it, in a message responding to someone saying that it could never be changed. Saying that it isn't impossible to change something does not mean that it is merely temporary. A concrete retaining wall is permanent yet can still be torn down if people choose to do so. What do you think of his much later statement that "Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices."? > I did try to have an open discussion on r/Bitcoin, but what I found was that answers to my questions were removed, and even my questions were removed. Where? If you demonstrated the kind of apparent bad faith approach you've done so here-- perhaps you should consider that you might have earned it? If not, you might have just been made roadkill by an overactive immune system-- that subreddit was utterly mobbed by an endless stream of shill sockpuppet accounts arguing a particular agenda. :( > I did see that Adam Back was challenged to a public debate on these issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning But also... who cares what he thinks? If you wanted to see debate there are literally hundreds of kilobytes on the subject written by people who have been actually involved with developing the Bitcoin system. |