These are both examples of your desire to raise Bitcoin's blocksize limit already put into practice.
But there is a 5 pages context to that part you quoted, not sure why would you qoute a tiny portion of a huge context, but ya, anyway.
I'm saying 4 MB is already pretty big
Yes, using 1980s standards it is pretty big.
If you want bigger, go to BCH or BSV. Ultimately,
I never said I wanted big blocks, I said if I MUST take the action i would only raise blocksize big enough to kill alts not to compete with visa, but then again this argument of " if you want big blocks go to BCH or BSV" is pretty naive, honestly.
I assume, most of you saying this would be repeating the same stuff if the larger block blockchain was longer and kept btc ticker on all exchanges, you would be asking the small blockers to go use BCH if they wanted small blocks.
The way I see it is that most people don't even care about blocksize, they just want that version of bitcoin that exchanges call btc and is worth 40k, be it 4MB or 40MB makes no difference to the majority.
I wonder what would be the excuse when btc blocks are raised some point in the future, are you going to still say it is bad solution and ditch bitcoin or you will accept it?
the point is, even bigger blocks isn't a good solution.
Really? Then why segwit? Why did blocks go from 1MB to 4MB if bigger blocks are a bad solution?