BTC the reason of keeping small block size.

[walerikus]

There are a lot of various opinions about safety issues. Starting from Satoshi himself, originally there was no limit as far as I know, then 1MB size was implemented to prevent spam, but it was a temporary limit, and Satoshi was advocating that the network in order to scale needs to increase the block size.

So here I find the next reasons nowadays about the BTC 1MB block size limit.

1) There is a safety issue with large blocks. What exactly is that safety issue?

2) Less nodes can support the blockchain with large blocks. It would cost more to buy large storage for the blockchain.

3) The network can be spammed with large blocks. But what is an effect of that spam, how dangerous is that spam for Bitcoin blockchain? .

Coming back to the nodes and decentralization issue, there is a statement I have heard many times.
If Bitcoin implements larger block size, less nodes can support the network, making Bitcoin network less decentralized.

Here I come to the point of Decentralization.
Bitcoin is decentralized in 3 ways.
1) Network is supported by multiple nodes / miners.
2) Coin generation is being made by multiple nodes / miners.
3) There is no central point of control over network, no matter how much nodes are running the network, the configuration of Bitcoin is designed to support an autonomous operation of network without a human control. There is no administrator that can restrict users from opening accounts, transacting and etc.

All 3 ways of decentralization are combined and important, but I think the whole point is the absence of a central point of control, and the network support by multiple nodes just helps to reach this goal.

Some people tell it's better to pay high transaction fees and use a network with a larger amount of running nodes that pay less fees on a network with a smaller amount of nodes. In both cases, the decentralization of network remains the same, there is no administrator in both cases.

Why users should pay more transaction fees, and make the usage of network less attractive, while nodes / miners can spend more money to buy a larger storage and support a greater amount of transactions with benefit, collecting fees by more confirmed transactions with low fees, instead of confirming less transactions with higher fees? When both internet speed and hard drive storage is much higher today in 2020 comparing to 2010.

[mindrust]

If small blocks were as bad as you pictured it, then bitcoin should die off and some other big block coin should take over.

But it is not happening. Why? Because bitcoin is doing fine.

3) The network can be spammed with large blocks. But what is an effect of that spam, how dangerous is that spam for Bitcoin blockchain? .

It makes it harder to sync.

[HeRetiK]

3) The network can be spammed with large blocks. But what is an effect of that spam, how dangerous is that spam for Bitcoin blockchain? .

3. Blockchain size growing quickly, more resources required to verify blocks/transaction, etc.

Also the network being easily spammed means that there's little to be gained from an increased blocksize.

A 1MB block with zero spam is just as effective as an 8MB block with 7MB spam, but way more efficient. (the numbers being just an example; as mentioned by ETFbitcoin the blocksize limit is now measured in weight units leading to an effective blocksize of ~1-2MB)

[Heisenberg_Hunter]

Satoshi was advocating that the network in order to scale needs to increase the block size.

As ETFBitcoin pointed out, it is more appropriate to calculate block size in weight units rather than the 1MB limit. I don't think you seem to have read the discussions present in [PATCH] increase block size limit in a proper way. Satoshi never said of an immediate change like how BCASH was implemented but rather a slow change which is being currently carried out. If you are willing to code a client with larger block size you can very well go ahead with your code and probably you might be the only one using the new client.

Some people tell it's better to pay high transaction fees and use a network with a larger amount of running nodes that pay less fees on a network with a smaller amount of nodes. In both cases, the decentralization of network remains the same, there is no administrator in both cases.

This is quite not true. Decentralization doesn't rely on having a administrator rather they are dependent on core users trying to change the protocol. Here bitcoin relies on large number of nodes which broadcasts the transaction and we don't need to depend on few nodes. What if the elite groups running the expensive nodes isn't trustworthy? What if the elite groups try to manipulate the network? This isn't going by the name of decentralization!

Why users should pay more transaction fees, and make the usage of network less attractive, while nodes / miners can spend more money to buy a larger storage and support a greater amount of transactions with benefit, collecting fees by more confirmed transactions with low fees, instead of confirming less transactions with higher fees? When both internet speed and hard drive storage is much higher today in 2020 comparing to 2010.

As I have already said above, decentralization exists only when there is a larger amount of full nodes controlling the network and it doesn't rely on administrator. The fact is that, every ordinary individual can contribute and control the network by just spending 200GB of hard disk space, but if the nodes which consist of large blocks are controlled by certain limited set of centralized users then the whole point of decentralization is destroyed here.

[Philipma1957cellphone]

I disagree a bit on what you need for a proper node. HAVING done a lot of testing kn fullsized blockchain downloads this month. I decent node needs a good internet connection. Since a crash and burn event means eight to nine hours to synch a full blockchain if you have 100mbps connection