Well you didn't answer my question.
Oh - we're gonna play _that_ game? OK - you first:
So you are basically admitting that bigger blocks will bloat the blockchain?
If your definition of 'bloat' is 'bigger', then ... ummm.... duh. Yes.
What is the point of your question?
The point of my reasoning above is to show that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands.
And how is bigger blocks not centralization?
Oh hell with it - I'll answer first, though it really be your turn. Better - I'll answer in the form of a question...
And how is kumquats not hairbrushes?In no sane set of definitions for 'bigger blocks' and 'centralization' are they equivalent. English much?
Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.
Now here's a question for you -
It doesn't really matter how bad SegWit is. What you advocate is far worse.
As:
a) you think SegWit is The One True Way;
b) you cede that SegWit requires more resources of a fully-validating node than the status quo to represent each transaction; and
c) you seem to value centralization very highly;
then:
is your true goal to 'decentralize' by reducing transaction count to zero?
SegWit isn't perfect but at least it's opt in. It's not forced on anyone.
Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.