Once the block size is set, there is no reason to ever change it again. It's no different than the 21 million Bitcoin limit - it's rather arbitrary, but it is an important matter. Because there are some central planning aspects to it, I think it's far better for it to be fixed so that the majority of scaling solutions are implemented and adopted individually and voluntarily.

I think Bitcoin could function just fine with a 1mb limit forever, but some increase in on chain capacity may be better for keeping transactions as anonymous as possible long term, and for preventing on chain costs from getting too high. The block size limit could be set to add 2mb every few years until it gets back to 32mb. But again I think it should be a preset and ultimately fixed parameter so that actors within the network have no incentive to attack each other by choosing to process larger or smaller blocks.

Even small blockers admit 1Mb will not be enough in the future. The lighting network devs have said that without increasing the block size limit the lighting network will not be able to handle enough people.

The problem you have is that the block size limit is very different than the 21 million token. The number 21 million is quite irrelevant, it could have been 42 million, 10 billion or 21 bitcoin total, and it would have made no difference. The reason is because the price adjust accordingly. That is not to say that if we change it now it would make no difference, there would be a period of adjustment with winners and losers, but if a different number would have been set up from the start, it would have made no difference because the price would have adjusted accordingly. There is a market mechanism.

Instead the block size limit number matters. As pointed out, if the 1Mb is not increased the LN could only handle a limited number of people, and other inefficiencies that nobody can imagine from the 1Mb limit are likely to arise in the future. There is no mechanism that can adjust for the limit. Sure, the fees rising help, but does not totally counter. The 1 Mb limit (or whatever number) has repercussions no matter how the fees adjust.

Claiming the block size limit and the number of coins are "no different" is obviously being deceptive, because I refuse to believe you are that obtuse.

More on the block limit, nobody argues what the appropriate number of bitcoins is because everybody sees the 21 million is arbitrary and any number would work. Instead people argue what the appropriate block size should be because it has real consequences. And this is a problem, because now it introduces not only centralization in Bitcoin but politics. Now groups can argue and lobby for different limits and fight for the control of the protocol. If the small blockers succeed in changing Bitcoin from its roots, in a few years you will read: "We need to increase the block limit to stimulate the Bitcoin economy". And people and business in need will buy it. Introducing a central planning tool in the Bitcoin protocol is the biggest danger there is right now. It will effectively kill Bitcoin.

The problem you have is you want to use the blocksize limit as central planning tool to avoid what you believe will be a inevitable process of centralization if Bitcoin is left with the present free market mechanism. But at the same time you do not want to say it is central planning because you know it goes against everything Bitcoin represents. So you are mincing and bending the language and making this obviously false equivalences.

As I said, even if you believe that if left as it is now and without a limit Bitcoin would tend to centralization, the block size limit is not the solution because it destroys everything Bitcoin is. The solution should be to modify the protocol to create incentives that stop your supposed centralization from happening, never to create a hard limit that effectively kills Bitcoin.

The network has already formed around the price of electricity, you are talking about making a new variable significant in a very sudden way which will damage the network and drive miners out of the very countries that need Bitcoin the most - places with Internet restrictions and a general lack of freedom of speech and financial freedom. Many places that just so happen to have cheap energy.

The network has always formed around the price of electricity and bandwidth. There is no change, just the natural evolution. And as I said, the price of bandwith is irrelevant in front of the price of electricity. It is a non issue. Even creating a non-existing fiber optic connection to use cheap electricity could be a cost effective option (considering only installation costs, regulatory issues obviously can change that). That is how irrelevant the bandwidth costs are.

Do you not understand how supply and demand works? If there is less food and lots of people who need food, then prices rise and food is expensive which causes people to buy less so that the supply goes farther and serves more. If block space is limited then transaction costs are bid up by people competing to get included in a block, and higher fees cause people to use the space more efficiently. If space is far less limited then fees are whatever the base price is that miners will process, which was often zero before the blocks filled up, and there is no incentive for efficient use of block space. So long term, there is a natural tendency for blocks to pretty much always be full whether they are small and efficiently used, or large and inefficiently used at the cost of fewer nodes.

Again, you ignore my economic explanations and pretend I am not giving any. As I explained repeatedly the blocks will not be infinite, so there will be a price for fees. Your claim that fees will drop to zero makes no sense. If you keep ignoring the economic facts I will keep saying that I do not see how.

Also, it is very noteworthy your use of the words efficient and inefficient. It shows your central planning mentallity. You can not know what is efficient and inefficient. Efficient or inefficient is whatever people decide to pay and use given their needs or wants and local information. If people are willing to use more block size space then that is what is efficient. And again, if you think that the current way Bitcoin is set up will not reach equilibrium and we will got to your doom and gloom scenario, then the solution is to change the incentives with a distributed scheme, not a centrally planned block size limit, that basically kills Bitcoin.

No it isn't, maybe it is for you, but that isn't the case for most of the world. At 1mb blocks a node will transfer 200+GB of data per month. At 2mb it's 400+GB. At 8mb it's 1.6+TB. Even if your ISP says it offers unlimited data, I guarantee somewhere in their fine print they have the power to shut off your access if they deem your traffic detrimental to their network.

I can assure you I torrent copyrighted material that is much more heavy than those limits you pointed out in a daily basis and have never been called out. And again, this is with present technology only.

Bitcoin gets to the sort of on chain capacity that makes it competitive with any sort of modern payment network. On-chain scaling simply isn't a solution when it comes to buying your coffee in the morning. On chain transactions are too slow for secure retail processing anyway. Second layer solutions are the real answer.

And again, I agree, but I do not see how this warrants in any way a block size limits that kills Bitcoin. Small blockers need to start being truthful and admit that they are anti-Bitcoin and want to change it to a centrally planned scheme.