He went out of his way to argue for a particular (and I would argue wrong) interpretation of what 'peer' in 'peer-to-peer electronic cash' means, and his interp

He went out of his way to argue for a particular (and I would argue wrong) interpretation of what 'peer' in 'peer-to-peer electronic cash' means, and his interpretation seems intended to support the 1-MB-digital-gold side of the scaling debate. I had every right to bring up this debate since his argument very clearly was taking a side in it. >>You said key custody has to do with fees, which it does not. The fee market does not influence, at all, how hard or easy it is to maintain custody of keys on a blockchain. I just explained how it does. You didn't address my points. You're denying what common sense says is undeniably true, to promote a vision of Bitcoin where the vast majority of the world don't have private keys to their own Bitcoin wealth, because only a tiny portion of the world population can access the blockchain with any frequency. >>People pay the fees that they are willing to pay. Your position reminds me of the Yogi-ism "Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded". That's not even a point. "People pay the fees that they are willing to pay" is tautological. As fees increase, the portion of the population that can afford to access the blockchain shrinks. No amount of spin is going to conceal the fact that a 1-MB block size limit ensures mass adoption of Bitcoin, with Bitcoin remaining an affordable and peer-to-peer electronic cash, is impossible, and furthermore, that it betrays the original vision for Bitcoin as described in the white paper and Satoshi's other writings.