Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?
Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?
Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?
The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):
1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)
2. Mining centralization.
Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization. It is true that an increased blocksize will lead to it being more expensive to run a full node, but that in my opinion is better then the alternative, it should be a balancing act after all. I also do not think that Bitcoin is just a settlement network, it can be and is much more then just that. Bitcoin is many things and we should not restrict its use especially if we do not need to do so. Increasing the blocksize will lead to less centralization compared to keeping the block size at one megabyte. Bitcoin is a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of the ancient world.
This article explains well why we should increase the block size:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0You didn't say anything worthy of my attention, again.