It is absolute clear that all the arguments against increasing the blocksize are not justified, at least not anymore considering the current miner landscape.
Arguments against block size increase are based on decentralization[1] and alternatives such as Segwit, which will reduce transaction size instead of block size (which will be able to achieve the same result without increasing centralization)
[1] as satoshi said
Quote
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
If you don't care about decentralization, as you think it does not justify a reduced block size, you have two alternatives:
Use BCH or Visa. I think Vista is much better lol
Visa can do 24.000 tps, while BCH is centralized and do only 60.
BCH is not more 'centralized' ( what's the exact definition here, and what measures follows from such?)
Original BitCoin can already do a lot more than ripple , u just need to investigate it in its form/implementation of BSV.