I don't disagree with your conclusion but your logic seems to be marred by regurgitation of talking points.
ASICBoost is a non-issue and really doesn't increase hashing that much in the current environment. Furthermore, ASICBoost was patented by a KORE DEVELOPER. Nobody was screaming bloody murder about it when Lerner filed for the AB patent or when he licensed it to Bitmain. Doesn't that make you wonder why they got everybody worked into a frenzy about AB just when they needed Segwit to get rammed thru?
What do you meann ASICboost doesn't increase the hashing rate in the current environment? If you mean the other chain, then that is true. If you mean the Bitcoin Cash Chain, are you stating the 20% increase in hash rate is vastly overstated?
Also if you think for more than one second, Ver and Jihan are pumping hundred of millions into BTC, and probably much less into BCH. Jihan runs the largest BTC mining hardware manufacturer, why wouldn't he be pro-BTC? He likely has millions of his own fortune intrinsically tied up with BTC's fate. Ver was known as "Bitcoin Jesus" for giving away what is now millions of dollars worth of BTC. I think it's safe to say he is pro-BTC. The only thing they don't like is the Kore team and how they are deliberately crippling BTC with 1MB blocks, Segwit, and RBF, to provide an excuse for Lightning to save the day. Which you should know is such a stupid plan, if you've read any current research on the subject.
Ver probably has the best of intentions. However, Jihan's motivation is to have as much control as possible; not only with the mining aspect but with the direction of future development as well. If he can basically get KORE fired, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to fill the gap. How perfect for him to be able to totally control the destiny of BTC. In the mean time, if he can't accomplish his desire for absolute power on the BTC chain, he has Bitcoin Cash that he can totally control.
Large blocks are not a problem like Kore screamed relentlessly they would be, and fees are 4000x lower on BCH. High fees and a bloated mempool ARE problems on BTC that have real and grave consequences for BTC, that have drastically reduced BTC's crypto market share AND the BTC adoption rate. These are just facts, yet the Kore fanbois (not saying you are one) just keep burying their heads under some more sand every time they are asked to address it.
I happen to know from experience that large blocks can be a problem for casual users. I happen to own a shitcoin that made the mistake of having 30 second blocks. My computer has a hard time keeping up with these blocks, because it needs to spend time downloading the new blocks and verifying them. Since most of the blocks on this chain are empty, I can't imagine how difficult it would be for my computer to keep up with blocks that are near capacity. In order for a coin to properly scale on-chain with 10 minute blocks so that it can realistically compete with Visa, you would probably need 1GB blocks. This definitely would exclude a casual user from realistically running a node. It would also make entry for any start ups who need to run a node, like a new exchange, more difficult.
PS: I am not running a Raspberry PI.
1GB blocks over the next 10 years would mean needing to download, store and verify over 500 PetaByte that's huge
The above would be true if all blocks were full which can be easily inflated with spam attacks etc that's one of the reason to have smaller capped blocks over unlimited sizes
With a unlimited block size yes it would be cheaper and you could spam the mempool all day long to yourself with 0 fee transactions making the blockchain huge and it would cost you nothing now try the same with a capped block and it's going to cost you a fortune and you may as well just burn your money
Just blindly increasing the blocksize is retarded first you should optimise the storage medium (Segwit>schnorr signature etc) then scale up as needed