Refuting the 5 arguments of 1mb supporters

[Visdome]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

How is 1MB limiting adoption? why do I keep reading about this nonsense? If you pay the fee it works as intended. If you raise blocksize to 2MB right now you are lossing a node cause I cant keep up with the amount of gigabites the block size is going to take on my hardware.

You keep propagating the myth that fees are a panacea for scalability.
A 7tps system will never be a 100tps or a 1000tps system no matter
what you do with the fee structure.

A 7tps system will not be popular so the total value of bitcoin will not increase. It will reduce if we cannot increase it to 14, 100 tps in the future.

[doubleredrolex]

How is 1MB limiting adoption? why do I keep reading about this nonsense? If you pay the fee it works as intended.

Hey, here's a crazy newsflash - not very many people use Bitcoin. If twenty million people want in it suddenly becomes a whole load less appealing as fees spiral to infinity and transactions take forever. Most first time users will not give it a second chance in that scenario.

They need to do something. Its already too slow and the block chain is way too big.

[Lauda]

That's why we need to increase block size (even i think 2MB can't hold it for long time), blockstream isn't way to solve this problem.

Blockstream is trying to solve it while you're falling for the nonsense proposed by Bitcoin Classic. Let's look at how badly Bitcoin scales via the block size limit.
Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
Without off-chain solutions such as LN, Bitcoin doesn't have a future on a global scale. I'm not saying that we should never increase the block size. However, we should not be looking at it as the primary way of scaling Bitcoin.

Maybe some people will think there'll less node & pools need better server, but with very fast technology growing, there won't be any problem. Internet fiber become more common, microprocessor is faster and more efficient & a harddisk can have 100TB capacity in 2020.

We're already reaching problems with Moore's law (which is almost dead); HDD capacity is begging to stagnate, the average internet speed grows in small percentages per year.

[andulolika]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

The average user won't will start using Bitcoin just because you said "hey, come on, I made some space just for you!".
If they didn't come yet, it's not increasing by only 1MB that will convince people to use. The mass adoption won't happen so soon.

I aboslutely agree with you.
Just rasing the limit to 2MB will not make the average people rushing into Bitcoin.That's totally wrong to believe this way.
I believe crypto currencies will stay as a niche for at least the next 5-10 years. And to be honest I would be totally fine with that as we have hopefully enough time to develop the network properly.
Just have a look how long it took the internet to really take off.Bitcoin and crypto currencies might be a bit faster, but not much imo.

Finally a guy that got it right, we dont need btc to go sky high yet, we need to make it usefull.