He is an all around fraud and aweful speaker but basically he was making a case for Moore's law + keeping incentives on the security network + scaling onchain for robust censorship resistance.

It's not a bad argument. Medium term I'm more or less pro Segwit / pro dev team. But it's pretty insane that in ten years with Moore's law in effect you haven't at least doubled or quadroupled bitcoin block size.

I also don't understand "bandwidth will centralize us" when it's likely that two miners own > 65% of the hash & one may own > 50%. Unless someone is wanting to benefit from off chain transactions.

So basically onchain can handle all the growth and could handle all forseeable growth even if BTC quadrupled in volume w 8MB blocks. Centralization when two people own > 50% of the hash is a joke.

Leaving core devs in favor of any of the optional dev teams bitcoin has been given is a horrible idea. Bitcoin's PoW security system is an upside down pyramid anyway with shrinking rewards to market cap ratio. Taking away 90% of the transactions offchain by ignore Moore's law is also a bad idea.

But trustless interweb money that people make in their basements with ASICs all across the world that can act like my bank balance without being a bank, cross any borders and is both transparent and private at the same time is still goddamned cool.