It is a false dichotomy to say that we either scale or we centralized the nodes, this choice exists on a spectrum. Sure we do increase the centralization pressure on the nodes when we increase the blocksize limit but there are other benefits to this that need to be balanced on the whole.
If that's true, then what's the magic number? Surely there's some goldilocks zone where the transactional throughput is in balance with node centralisation? How would one measure the balance? And I want a definitive number for 2016, answer both questions, please.
(don't tell me: you've got nothing to offer except another wall of rambling text).
Can you answer the question? No, meaningfully?
I can answer this question, there is not necessarily a Goldilocks zone that can be clearly defined, However I am sure that one megabyte is not it, and it certainly will not be it going into the future, the blocksize limit should be increased as our technology increases, this should be obvious, unless you favor limiting the blocksize for economic reasons. It should be clear however that increasing the blocksize is what is best for the economics of Bitcoin, not the other way around.