That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.
All the "evidence" the "large blockers" seem to require is whether the blocks are full or not. If they are, they say the fullblocalypse is coming,
even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.
So, from a social engineering perspective, the system is pretty vulnerable.
1. Spam the network to fill the blocks
2. Show some useful idiots that "blocks are getting full"
3. Have the useful idiots think the apocalypse is coming, due to the junk txs
4. Let the useful idiots propagate the idea that the developers are crazy for not seeing the same thing and that since the devs are not seeing the apocalypse, they are inadequate and not up to the task, or have ulterior motives to bury btc, or (insert any other conspiracy here).
5. Force devs due to social engineering pressure to increase block size (which reduces fee competition and allows cheap spamming of the blocks) against fundamental reasons not to.
6. Re-spam the enlarged blocks, now at cheaper rates
It's a "GOTO 1 - repeat - fill blockchain with junk - make BTC centralized in the process - leave it vulnerable to other attack vectors as well", situation.
But it could also play out differently... miners might decide that it's not even worth the risk of including 3-4-5-10mb of txs, as the 25 BTC or 12.5 BTC reward is much better than gaining an extra half btc (with an increased orphan risk). A 30s, 1m, 2m advantage could be significant in finding a block. So at that point we'll have a network that only processes very high fee txs to ensure the fastest propagation possible and that the miner has an advantage over the other miners who actually want to include txs in their blocks. At that point, the same people who were asking for much larger blocks, will be crying at how inadequate bitcoin devs are for creating a situation where miners do not even want to mine regular transactions but rather opt to mine only the block reward (and/or some very high fee txs). I mean this is already happening with 1MB empty blocks. Empty-blockers (miners) will be saying "
haha those idiots mining the 4-8-10mb blocks full of txs are shooting themselves in the foot, while we are having a tremendous edge over them with our empty blocks". What then? Start forcing miners to mine the transactions?
You have a serious denial issues if you think someone can't copy an open source project, tweak it to remove some bugs, rebrand it to get rid of the baggage and bullshit and give the dominant player some serious competition, especially with enough funding. It doesn't matter if it's grass roots or astroturf. Fake it 'till you make it. Billionaires who missed out on being early adopters can be early adopters of BTC2.0 It can even be decentralized and distributed. Haterz be worldwide, Bro.
You fail to grasp a very simple concept:
If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?
If I can have many free txs then I can make a script and fuck the system up for peanuts. Hundreds or thousands of nodes will be paying bandwidth and storage costs for junk that took me a few seconds to generate through my script. The game theory of such a system doesn't add up.
Now, if someone finds a groundbreaking solution in scaling, and this is by some kind of open-source decentralized crypto, then, perhaps, BTC can copy that solution (if it works) and apply it to increase its own scaling potential. Open source works both ways.
