Why didn't you calculate this for 10 MB blocks? After all, we are talking about this increase now.
For increase to 10 MB, I'll right as well vote in favor, and maybe a little higher than that. I have clarified before that I'm not strictly against anything beyond 4 MB, I'm just not of the opinion that it's going to solve the problem; it's only delaying it.
Yes, it doesn't solve the problem but it's clear that current block size is not enough and it's not just a temporary case. What if bitcoin becomes popular and millions of people want to make transaction each day? They'll move on altcoins and this is a very serious threat.
I read many posts and to be honest I can't understand how increased block size can make bitcoin less secure. Is 1MB any standard for security?
I have explained in
this post.
I missed that post, sorry.
I like your question:
what's the ideal block size? Ideal size doesn't exist but size has to be chosen. Something flexible would be great, like, block size adapts to number of transactions, i.e. one block gets mined every 10 minutes and includes 5% of all transactions. If number of transactions increase, block takes more transactions and block size increases and if number of transactions decrease, so does the block size. But that's probably not possible.
Also, I want to say that it's not a problem today to store bitcoin blockchain on hard drive.
Not on 4 MB blocks. Maybe neither on 10 MB or 20 MB, but if you arbitrarily increase it to something like 100, then that will also be a problem at some point.
10MB is not a problem today but it was a problem years ago, right? 100MB is a problem today but it won't be a problem years later. I'm afraid, we may have to gradually increase block size but it's not the best solution to the problem. This problem is not easy to deal with. After all, block size increase really looks like delaying the problem but that doesn't mean we should stop on current limit even if it means delay.