...
This is just not true for numerous reasons. You're basically saying we needed to spam blocks with bogus transactions for years on end to prevent an ASIC empire from growing in China. If a larger block size existed allowing people to do things like this, people would have implemented something like a hard coded min transaction fee or just lowered block size to fight against it. ASICs in China isn't a big problem because it's just a symptom of everything on earth being manufactured in China. This will inevitably cease to exist through either tariffs or war.
No I am simply saying that the Bitcoin blocksize should have been and be allowed to rise to meet legitimate demand. An adaptive blocksize limit as is the case in Monero actually deals with spam issue also very well. If blocksize and the GFWC was not an issue then why are the Chinese miners so opposed to raising the blocksize limit? A 10 - 14 sec latency is not trivial when mining even with a 10 min blocktime. The myth that keeping the blocksize small was necessary to prevent miner centralization has been debunked in BItcoin by the GFWC.
The reality here is that we are dealing with complex financial systems with many variables. If one only takes a subset of the variables and makes assumptions then those assumptions will eventually fail. Not taking into the account the impact of government censorship on Internet latency and proof of work mining is a good example as to why ignoring certain variables in the equation can lead to incorrect results.
Edit: The real issue here is that by setting such a critical parameter as the blocksize fixed in the protocol, instead of
allowing the market to set the blocksize, Bitcoin has created a very powerful economic interest that now stands to loose a lot of money if Bitcoin is allowed to scale. This now has become a very serious problem for BItcoin.
