Blocksize limit already exists in the consensus rules, nobody from Blockstream forced it into them.
Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?
The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible."
Blockstream now wants to change the max block size into "a value that makes block space scarce so that the fees will rise, even if transactions will be delayed by many blocks." Is it possible that they don't realize that keeping the 1 MB limit as tre traffic crashes into it is a radical change in the protocol?
That
new parameter -- the scarcity control -- happens to be 1 MB now, but they admit that they may set it to higher values in the future. But always to values that will keep space in the blocks scarce. Who decides
how scarce? Well, the devs ... or maybe the miners, but by grace and privilege of the devs...
[ Controlling the fees by defining the scarcity of block space ] is better [ than setting the fees directly ] because the block size limit also serves [ as ... ] a "check" on inherent economies of scale within mining which, removed, would necessarily lead to a precipitated centralization of mining.
There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future. That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point. The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc. that exist for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations.
[/quote]