Ok.
i'd just love to see someone against block size rise discuss with you, I'd learn a lot
many have tried rebuttling me, but just used insults and not logic, not stats, not real life scenarios.
but yes. dont take anyones info on face value and run your own scenarios.
the short gist of blocksizes is that with dynamic blocks (node users set the blocksize buffer setting themselves) anything under that setting is acceptable. EG some people already have theirs set at 2mb, 4mb and up. and they are running on the network accepting (1mb)blocks now. perfectly fine.. no issues
using consensus (feature in bitcoin) if the majority flagged a certain level. then pools would flag a level they are happy with too and it grows only at a rate the majority are happy with.
so the rational minded people know it wont jump to gigabytes over night but natural pace that nodes can cope with.
after all if they cant cope, they wont flag desire for it. and any increase wont activate, due to consensus not being reached
only issue is core are withholding an implimentation of that sort of feature to allow users to self adjust. thus we are stuck at 1mb until those running core are spoonfed whatever core devs want to give their users.
so take the blocksize doomsday rhetorics with a large pinch of salt, it just core devs (blockstream paid + lots of unpaid interns) holding things back, because they prfer pushing users into centralist contracts where they can make money charging fee's and revoking payments
