5.A higher block size limit may increase miners expenses but it may also increase miners income, therefore small mining farms are not kicked out of the game.
asic miners (whether a block is empty or if a block is 50000000000 petabytes) still only receives the same length hash to then compute.
it costs no more or no less no matter the block size
asics dont touch the transactions
Alright, alright, guys I'll reveal some facts that may shock you..
1.A shortage of supply (block space) forces many people to leave their coins on their exchange which is a lot more dangerous than a few people not being able to run a full (who probably do not own a wallet anway).
Dangerous for who?
guess you forgot MTGOX. cryptsy, mintpal bitcoinica, cryptorush, btc-e.. and the others
2.Running a full node does not give you a vote, you can "listen" to what others have to say but nobody cares about what you have to say
I believe BIP-148/Segwit showed everyone that that’s not true. In fact, it’s the full nodes that give demand to what the miners produce, and not just any block, it should be a specific type of block with rules enforced by the full nodes.
the NYA was not about average joe full noders.. it was where the ECONOMIC nodes (merchants/services) that swayed the vote and coerced the pools to change their versionbits.
not average joe wood-working people in small workshops that just happen to have a fullnode
3.A faster block propagation with less transactions per block does not allow transactions to be confirmed more quickly.
It’s about the settlement assurances, not speed. One confirmation in Bitcoin is still more secure than one confirmation of shitcoins.
glad your finally seeing the light of day.. how confirmed and full ownership of coins means more then promised(commitment) of unconfirmed co-signed unsettled balance of other networks token