Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser.
..
OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?
..
OK, do you believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?
-Snip-
I'll ask again, does ANYONE believe that BCash's maximum block size is not centralizing for its network, if the demand for its block space goes as high as the demand for Bitcoin's block space?
This is an incorrect statement. To be blunt, you are lying.
Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.
Maybe not, but in general, bigger blocks = require more resources = centralizing the network. It's simply physics, ser. Not every block increase results in a loss of decentralization.
You also need to consider cost of the resource (such as storage in $/TB or internet speed in $/GB) usually going down over time. Although waiting time for IBD (initial block download) probably only become worse, especially if block size limit is increased and block remain mostly full.
The trolls are speaking with situational premises, and OK, but I can also speak about other situational premises too, like not every user has the same access to cheap hardware, cheap bandwidth, and increasing these requirments would be centralizing for the network. Let's avoid that. Let's talk about how things generally are. Would it be wrong to say that an increase in block size = require more resources = centralizing?