Now this would be the better way to convince developers to support an increase in the blocksize:
1) Figure out a method to encourage more decentralized nodes and decentralization of mining to alleviate their concerns. Developers have a clear understanding of the security vulnerabilities of bitcoin unlike the average user and see how vulnerable it is now, placate these fears with real solution or evidence and they will be much more likely to agree that increasing capacity with the blocksize is safe
2) Focus on helping layer 2 solutions like LN , payment channels, ect to increase capacity.
making "users" put their coins into 'layer 2 solutions' will ruin any encouragement for increasing the decentralized nodes total.
think logically.. if your coins are locked into LN, using hubs.. why would you care about preserving bitcoins onchain ledger. because you would literally never use it practically as its just a behind the scenes thing to the user of 'layer 2 solutions'..
even sidechains.. if you threw all your coins over to an "elements" altcoin why would you want to preserve bitcoins blockchain..
even pruned, no witness mode is not actuall a 'full node' so does not help at all with the decentralized nodes total
the solution is not to dilute the population of decentralized nodes by moving people away from bitcoin full nodes, but to show the practical information
EG
the full roadmap features when finally all inplemented in mid 2017 would be a 5.7mb block of a potential 7600tx
or
just sticking to traditional transactions and raising the blocksize limit(capacity increase), along with linear signatures (checking speed increase)
1mb= ~2500tx
2mb= ~5000tx
4mb= ~10,000tx
and logically state that if both core and miners think that the REAL 5.7mb roaddmap result is ok for 7,600tx.. then 4mb (less data bloat) for 10,000tx (more capacity potential) is the logical win..
but i will presume that the blockstream believers will now use insults and lack of stats to try to say the opposite.