And perhaps I should clarify: most of the people who voted in favor of the size increase in this thread's poll are probably not running a full node; most of the people who voted against the size increase probably are. I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass, and it would probably be considered a
bad bet anyway.
I run a full node. Those who votes in favor of the size increase actually uses the blockchain directly, and the reason for them doing so is to not have to pass through a central gatekeeper like Paymium in the first place.
Consider these two scenarios:
- Block size remains the same, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, and you will need to pay higher fees to get a transaction included.
- Block size increases, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, but the fee remains the same.
Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as
early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be
that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how
expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses.
Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature.