They're warning about a scenario where running a Bitcoin node requires a license in every country in the world, where this global government measure doesn't lead to blocks getting tiny, that governments, after taking this measure, aren't willing to take the next step and ban all encrypted traffic, and that the majority of governments make laws forcing miners to use their hashing hardware to attack any 1 MB block limited forked version of Bitcoin.

In this incredibly improbable coincidence of events, then having made the 1 MB block limit permanent now would have been the correct decision.

To be fair, their premise is that encrypted traffic wouldn't be banned, so a 1 MB block limited Bitcoin network could operate encrypted, but that all countries in the world would require a license to run a Bitcoin node, so it would only be possible to run an uncensored Bitcoin node if blocks are small enough where they can be encrypted. In this scenario, only a 1 MB block limit could save Bitcoin.

Not true in my case, but I am way out on the edge compared to most people.

Getting rid of encryption on the public internet won't fly.  It is far to critical for security.  What could fly, however, would be only allowing encryption which was 'certified' in some manner.  Namely, in a manner which would provide a back-door which would allow analysis and capture.

I hypothesize that this will go down by having ISP's and network carriers use devices which will be able to detect and block encrypted data which is found to not be 'compliant'.  Or encrypted data which was carrying a payload which is not authorized.  And do so in close enough to real-time so that it could not be argued to be a show-stopper from an economic perspective.  This could explain some of these observations:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Obama-Set-to-Back-Fines-for-NonCompliant-Wiretapping-ISPs-124163

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/nsa-bluffdale/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeks

If this is true, then yes, there still _may_ be jurisdictions where it is possible to operate and access a high data-rate crypto-currency, but it will be a somewhat dangerous cat and mouse game reserved for specialists to even actually use them much less to operate them.  Actually, the same applies to low data-rate systems as well, but it becomes more practical to operate them in a wider range of places.

If large countries who's leadership most fears their own populations decide to cooperated within their own jurisdictions and put pressure on their smaller vassal states to do the same, it could become for all intents and purposes, impossible to run a viable system at high data rates.  I could imagine such cooperation being of enough mutual interest that I certainly would not rule it out.

Out-of-band communications like 'mesh networks' are not completely without hope, but it is critical to realize that even unmolested they will be WAY less capable, performant, and reliable than anything like what we are used to today.  If they are attacked as subversive, which seems highly likely to me, they may not work at all.

I would not anticipate such a dystopia to be a permanent thing.  People will eventually get fed up and make some changes.  But it could easily persist through a period of economic chaos, and that is exactly when we'd be in the most need of a functional and independent currency solution.

I don't see the option for "a shitty wire replacement service that is expensive to use, impractical for commerce, non-ubiquitous, unwilling to make use of computing advancements, and soon to be replaced by competing technology developed by reasonable people".

Stop misrepresenting Satoshi's ideas. I've read them. I knew what I was signing up for.

Bitcoin is intended to rival Visa and Paypal, not Western Union. Saying a lie over and over again does not make it true.

I want Bitcoin to be widely used. Actually used. I don't give a fuck about running a full node on my watch.

No, bitcoin is not intended to rival Visa, and never will be.  Bitcoin has nothing to do with debt (thank goodness).

I'm sure 4 years ago I was also thinking that my internet speed would be going up, along with my CPU speed.
But it didn't, so if I was Saotoshi I would likely review that targets now.
And since he is not here anymore, your guessing of whether he'd be voting to increase the block size now, or not, is as good as mine.
And even if he would, his vote only counts as much as he can hash - that's the rules he designed, himself

I disagree.
IMO it's very honest - it is as much honest, as you want to get from me.
One more level of my honesty up, and I would need to start swearing

You want it technical? No problem.
Please tell, if you know, me how long one EC_verify operation takes on your PC?