• That happens to be the same complaint about Lightning. Blocking transactins by miners suddenly makes double spends possible through Lightning. So there is that.

No, the complaint is that a central third party is required in LN to process transactions. This is a false complaint. The level of distribution of parties in your LN transactions is entirely up to you. As well with channel closures, there are consensus rules enforcing the validity of the most recent TX in a channel. A double-spend(which isn’t even really a double-spend here, it is submitting a transaction from a series of cached and netted transactions that is not the most recent) of that is a result of a miner forking against consensus rules, or a user not monitoring the network or outsourcing its channel closures so that a more recent transaction can counter a fraudulent closure. Nonsense one dealt with.

• Furthermore, the whole article sounds like a slippery slope argument again. And it all works at any blocksize-limit, again no quantification whatsoever.

A slippery slope is NOT just a logical fallacy. It is a valid argument based on the strength of its evidence and viability of forming a feedback loop. The argument I am making is an increase in the resources required to run a node are increased, resulting in the loss of nodes, for the increased throughput of non-validating transactors. This lessens the resistance to further changes, and having proven the pressure of transactors demanding low fees is enough to create a change, given less resistance next time transactors feel their costs are too high, that is a perfectly valid argument as to how that course of events will play out in a feedback loop. Nonsense two dealt with.

• This healthy balance between fully validating nodes / miners / SPV clients could be anywhere right? Left, right. Who knows?

Since the theme seems to be find the logical fallacy, this would be an appeal to fear and doubt. “It’s unknown, so why bother trying to make it known!? Try randomly!”

• And suddenly talking about passwords/accounts makes the slippery slope even more stupid, because that is what happens when fees are insanely high: You get pushed into centralised services which require a password, if only because they are cheaper….

I’ve already explained how slippery slope is not solely a FALLACY, but a rational form for an argument as well. Second layer services are not centralized, they can be, they are not by requirement or default. If you choose to use a centralized second layer, that is your right. My analogy to a password was to drive home a point, you seem to just irrationally flail for a chance to twist my analogy back at me here. You fail miserably.

• Up is down and down is up again. Sigh.

If you can just go into the bathroom, look at yourself in the mirror, and repeat this, this message will be directed where it most needs to go.