True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.
Larger blocks are a step in the
wrong direction. The reasons are many, and some are so blatantly obvious that it is pointless to waste time and energy explaining them in a forum post.
Instead, I will simply quote a paragraph from the Lightning Network paper [1]:
"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly
8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."
That's gigabytes, not megabytes... That should put things in perspective.
[1] Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja, "The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments", January 14, 2016.The step in the RIGHT direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN. We will most probably need a blocksize increase in the near future (hope so, because that would mean an increased adoption of Bitcoin) but it will be as a support of LN being blockchain the backbone of the payment network and LN some sort of multiplier of its transaction capacity.