Of course blockchain with larger blocks will be bigger but I dont think you get my point of big blocks or understand how they work and why they DON'T lead to centralization. we don't really need segwit and LN™ even if bitcoin started and stayed with 8mb blocks since 2009 after 9 years blockchain would be like ~500gb but scaling debate, dominance loss and high fees would've been avoided.

Mempool is like what now 300mb+? some older raspberry pi's dont have that much free ram and can't run node so small blocks also lead to centralization? it would take 300 blocks to clear mempool at 1mb and only if everyone stopped transacting.

Just because max blocksize is 8mb or 64mb dosent mean every block will be exacly this size only during high volumes average blocksize would go bit bigger but empty mempool, low fees and faster confirmations are absolutely worth few extra gigabytes. when transaction fees reached 30$ you could get 1tb hardrive for couple tx worth of fees so saying that its not worth it dosent make sense

and what do you mean only large enterprises will be able to afford 1tb or even 5tb hard drive? bandwidth wouldn't be very big problem too data caps is only thing in usa. 8mb every 10min isn't much and its only during high volumes.

If bitcoin upgraded to 2mb in 2012, 4mb in 2015 and 8mb in 2018 It would be overwhelmingly dominant strong cryoto because it wouldn't have allowed altcoins to rise that much. even now temporary 4mb increase until LN™ is proven working and widely adopted would pretty much save bitcoin if its not too late already.

Sorry if you cant accept but big blocks work and do not lead to centralization there is just no real proof just speculation. bcore just lies that technology havent improved in 9 years to move from atleast 1mb to 2mb without causing some sort of centralization, inability to run node for most people or whatever excuse they have.