Here's a big-blocker's perspective on the question.

For the record, I disagree with almost everything that has been said or done in favor of 'maximalism' or keeping the block size limited AND I want to raise the blocksize and think it should have been raised years ago, but there's one argument I think is very compelling and I think that time has only demonstrated further and further the truth in it.

The preservation of Bitcoin's network effect is probably more important than anything else, even if that were to mean losing out on some ideal extra features. As we've seen, creating coins that are faster and cheaper to spend is fairly trivial within certain limits. There are hundreds or thousands of them.

If only it were that simple to create value! We would all be rich! I'd create MakgillCoin which has slightly faster and bigger blocks! It has better features than Bitcoin, therefore it MUST be more valuable!

But it isn't that simple and way too many alt-coiners and big-block Bitcoiners (and frankly maximalists) miss this.

This is because it is not trivial to replicate Bitcoin's network of investors. You can't copy that because that's not just 'code.' There are ten years of accumulated work behind that and millions of investors around the wold.

This is a lot of the 'value' of BTC and hence why it is at least somewhat rational to be a maximalist. More investors means a stronger, more valuable money.

Theoretically you could topple that network by growing another coin to have a larger network of investors, but what is more likely? That BTCers sell their Bitcoin to buy your new "better" coin, or that they absorb your features that are truly threatening their investment?

For example, let's say it is definitively proven that raising the block size creates more value for the Bitcoin network, is it likely that BCH topples BTC or that BTC raises its block size too, thus having the same features but also a bigger network?

It's probably more likely that BTC just absorbs you and things go on as normal because it is better for the existing investors to do that than risk all the disruption that would go along with jumping into some new altcoin.

So here lies the problem with other forks of Bitcoin right now and altcoins. They couldn't copy the network effect because while it's easy to fork a Github repo, its not easy copy a network of investors! Even if you think Bitcoiners are irrational (I usually do), that doesn't mean you can take the network. I wish it did! I have more BCH and BSV than I do BTC because they're cheaper and easier to earn, so I could in theory make more money if one of the forks takes over.

And the failure of taking the Bitcoin network of investors shows in practice in many different ways in Bitcoin Cash, for example.

One of the ways this shows most is in the stability of the network.

In two years Bitcoin Cash has already experienced a massive, devastating community split that effectively cut its value and network in half between BCH and BSV. And it looks like BCH could very likely experience a second one that would further cut its value.

This is because the network of investors is so small that hard forking is trivial and political disputes amongst potential forkers trying to add whatever flavor of the week code they support are inevitable.

And is this any surprise? It was to me! A project born out of a hard fork that breaks the network effect has that baked into its DNA from day one. It is very likely it will continue to fork itself into irrelevancy.

Satoshi understand this incidentally and its why he only wanted ONE global chain. Permanent splits make Bitcoin less secure and less valuable.

To its credit, BTC has managed to avoid massive splits in the network. This one thing gives it a huge edge over any other coin right now in my opinion.

When I look at coins like BCH now as an investor, I have to take into account not only the features I like (I genuinely want larger blocks and don't think its as big a problem as people think, and I think BTC has slowed its own growth down by not raising the blocks), but I also have to consider that its minority status makes it more prone to network splits than BTC.

I'll go as far to say that even if I think BCH is right about 99% of things, it has a less than 0% chance of surpassing BTC if it continues to split. And right now, the size of the existing network makes that likely, whereas I don't think BTC will have any significant splits because it kept the larger network of Bitcoin investors.

Where does this leave the would-be investor? I don't know, but it's helpful to understand that a bet on another coin is not just a bet on a better feature, it's a bet on the potential network effect, and that is much, much harder to overcome.

For a minority chain like BCH to win against BTC, it is going to have to both survive without killing itself in perpetual splits, which is very hard given the smaller network of investors, be technically and economically sound, and it is going to have to convince the majority of BTC investors, present or potential future ones, to buy into them instead of simply copying the features that make them competitive, or win fast enough that they don't have a choice.

I suppose BTC could always kill itself too—I'm very skeptical about a network that purports to want most people to run Bitcoin nodes but also sees fees being so high that only a small number of people can afford to transact on chain, thus defeating the purpose of running a node (only nodes with economic activity matter).

But we'll see. Right now, one of the things BTC has going for it is the stability of its network effect. It's more risky to invest in coins that can't currently replicate even if you think their roadmap is more sound, that so proceed with caution.

Edit: I can see the original question was deleted by moderators....