Come on, the consolidation of mining operations, and therefore a handful of "people" controlling the blockchain will happen regardless of transaction throughput size. It's an economies of scale fact. As it becomes harder to mine the independent miners will wash out leaving only the biggest of operations conducting the work at a profitable pace. The only thing slowing down this eventuality is the price appreciation of bitcoin.
I am not against bigger blocks, but not at the cost of bitcoin network being controlled by a single entity or a couple of individuals.
1. Manufacturer of mining equipments want to control the network. Can it be more centralized?
2. There was ghash pool that hit 51%, and there is Chinese mining cartel with more than 51% combined.
3. Chinese government isn't in favour of bitcoin, a centralized decision to ban bitcoin in China would end up in taking down half of the decentralized bitcoin network.
Spam attacks, threatening the community because you own half of the network, is this the way to find a scalable solution?
Increasing block size is just a temporary solution. LN, sidechain/drivechain, extension blocks is a necessity if bitcoin needs to be used as an appropriate medium of exchange.
Can you please explain to us why this is a temporary solution? If extension blocks are ultimately needed then we should just make the transfer to that end.