If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.
Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)
https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39sSegwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.
We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.
I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.
Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity. But I would want to be conservative. Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.
If you don't see it, you don't see it. But it is the tragedy of the commons. Since BTC is permissionless ANYONE can write data to the blockchain. Therefore they will use the resources available for profit to the extent they can. The more is given the more will be used. Some will have commercial (selfish) incentive to do so.
For example anyone building sidechains (think Counterparty) that anchor to the main chain will have to pay fees for everything they write. These type of projects will chew through resources as fast as they are added. It's the way of the world. We don't see it yet because BTC is still in Pre-k.
The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.
In my opinion we want to be able to run full nodes on cellphones (eventually) and raspberry pi type hardware.
This means we will just need to be uncomfortably conservative at least at the start.
Block size increases are not the answer to the TSUNAMI of traffic that is on the way.
Like I said... If you don't see it, you don't see it.