Earlier quoted context omitted.
> increasing blocksize 4x or even 8x will have negligible impact on the security or decentrality of Bitcoin. Incorrect. It will make running a full node for almost all consumers in Australia impossible at any price. > hopefully SegWit2X will be the sane compromise Segwit is the compromise and we are finally going to get it. If you want to install the 2x hard-fork to china-coin, you are welcome to. Everyone else will…
You've made a lot of assertions like this but you aren't backing them up with any numbers. 8MB every 10 minutes is 13KB/s. Do Australians not look at youtube either, because when I was there well over a decade ago it worked pretty well. Even a full node syncing multiple people -while the blocks are full at 8MB- is no problem. Also there are many orders of magnitude left before running a full node exceeds the capacity…
https://iancoleman.github.io/blocksize/#_
Where's yours?
The issue is the upload bandwidth requirement, which demonstrates that your understanding of the constraint, with your comparison to YouTube, is completely incorrect. And centralizing of all of these nodes onto service provider infrastructure is the worst possible example of decentralization, which is what we're talking about in the first place.
What I've found in the past is the people who hold your views are only cursorily aware of the constraints of decentralization, and use unrelated justifications in order to hand wave away problems. Thankfully, the people who actually secure bitcoin, through their use of nodes, spend more time to understand how bitcoin works, and have repeatedly rejected 'solutions' that will reduce the security of the network.
But you can now prove me wrong! Instead of using bitcoin, use bitcoin cash. If what you say is true, it will be valued significantly higher than bitcoin. If it stops you trying to break bitcoin, even better.