Many of the people pushing for hardfork size increases are pushing a vision of Bitcoin that will almost certainly become highly centralized-- See for example the comments on Reddit today with people arguing that it's possible to handle 8GB blocks using computing systems at quasi-youtube scale-- some don't consider this a problem; from my perspective such a system would be completely uninteresting
8GB, here we go again. What about providing some scientific verifiable tests what minimum computer specifications you need to run full node on full 1 MB blocks versus full 2 MB blocks. If your right then you dont need to worry about the results and convince more bigger block supporters its not time for slightly bigger blocks because current average home computers could not even handle 2 MB blocks.
Or 1 MB is some kind of perfect magic number, or just fear of a hard fork ? I doubt you worry too much about the need others have to update full node clients for non problematic hard fork to occur, because to continue using Bitcoin we had to update wallets as well with better fees estimation algos (and much quickier than any grace period planned for hard forks).