Quote from: walerikus on Today at 07:56:49 AM

So here I find the next reasons nowadays about the BTC 1MB block size limit.

Bitcoin block size limit isn't 1 MB, but 4 kWu (4 million weights unit).

Quote from: walerikus on Today at 07:56:49 AM

1) There is a safety issue with large blocks. What exactly is that safety issue?

2) Less nodes can support the blockchain with large blocks. It would cost more to buy large storage for the blockchain.

3) The network can be spammed with large blocks. But what is an effect of that spam, how dangerous is that spam for Bitcoin blockchain? .

1. I don't know much about about safety issue (aside from security issue that might be caused due to centralization), can you share source about it?

2. Storage isn't the major issue. The major issue are storage I/O, CPU, RAM and connection speed (for those who use Tor or live on 3rd world country with low internet speed).

3. Blockchain size growing quickly, more resources required to verify blocks/transaction, etc.

Quote from: walerikus on Today at 07:56:49 AM

Some people tell it's better to pay high transaction fees and use a network with a larger amount of running nodes that pay less fees on a network with a smaller amount of nodes. In both cases, the decentralization of network remains the same, there is no administrator in both cases.

Why users should pay more transaction fees, and make the usage of network less attractive, while nodes / miners can spend more money to buy a larger storage and support a greater amount of transactions with benefit, collecting fees by more confirmed transactions with low fees, instead of confirming less transactions with higher fees? When both internet speed and hard drive storage is much higher today in 2020 comparing to 2010.

It's matter of perspective (low transaction fee vs low cost to run full nodes). While it's true miner could afford better server to run full nodes, nodes owner doesn't earn even single satoshi from running full nodes.