Are we both talking about the trillion project that was under terrorist attack and faced extinction when confronted by some jpg meme?
Terrorist attack? Lol. You mean that the immutable, decentralized, censorship-resistant, borderless Internet currency suddenly lost all its value because you had to pay an extra dollar as fee? Is that all the value you see? Abrupt fee raise, and suddenly worthless?
Also, how is increasing the blocksize breaking backward compatibility?
If you broadcast an 8 MB sized block at the moment you'll have it rejected, because anything beyond 4 MB is invalid. Validating previous invalid rules requires a hard fork. A hard fork means to break backwards compatibility. (unless you find a way to do this with soft fork; in that case, I'm all ears)
But what is really the concern then?
I told you the concern. You simply don't believe it's worth paying an extra dollar (in the short term) to maintain the current conservative status quo as it stands.
If hundreds of pages of people screaming about high fees is not a concern bigger than the price of 1TB of storage, then I must have a completely different view of what "global adoption" and "usage" mean and also I probably lack the imagination needed how this global adoption will happen with under 500k tx a day. Or 0.15% of the population of the US.
If hundreds of pages of academic research, thousands of hours dedicated to discussions, envisioning, and coding of second layer solutions, and the numerous forks of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Litecoin that failed to make progress by simply increasing the block size limit arbitrarily – if all of these do not provide evidence that global adoption cannot be achieved by tinkering with the block size, then I am at a loss for words.