The blocksize debate seems much more intricate than many of you are all led to believe. My simple understanding of economics reduces us to two decisions:


Inflate bitcoin, e.g. remove the hard cap and allow for greater block rewards to sufficiently incentivize mining
or
Reduce block size/slow block size growth in order to encourage fees.


By 2024, approximately 94% of all bitcoin's will be mined, and block reward will stand at 6.25btc. Unless a massive adoption event occurs that causes TX volume to jump exponentially, it is possible that by 2024, or past 2024, miners will no longer be sufficiently incentivized to "mine" as good actors.


The issue is that no one knows how bitcoin will be used in the future, but in order for it to successful in any capacity, miners must be incentivized sufficiently. Blowing the cap off the blocksize is a good way to disincentivize people from submitting TX fees, and the only people in the world who probably would be willing to mine at a loss are the trading engines that operate stock exchanges, countries that adopt bitcoin, and banks that are using sidechains.

In order to support a massive blocksize increase, you have to have a lot of faith that in the future (within 10 years) bitcoin's transaction volume + TX fees experiences a possibly brief but exponential increase. We've made a lot of inroads in the industry, but we've so far failed miserably as a currency since 2013. If blockchain technology is our own avenue for increasing transaction volume, I don't think there should be any rush to increase the block size.

We should only increase the blocksize when absolutely necessary. E.g. when we know that there is transaction volume that will never leave the network--- industries entering side chains to obfuscate their transactions-- country x adopting bitcoin-- x country's stock exchange moved to blockchain.

blocksize (today) at 1mb filling up (today) and forcing people to submit 0.0002 btc, or 2000bits as a TX fee does not warrant a block size increase.