[bitcoin-dev] A summary list of all concerns related to rising the block size

We've identified a fundamental disagreement in: - The block size maximum consensus rule serves to limit mining centralization But as said I believe at least 2 different formal proofs can be produced that in fact this is the case. One of them (the one I'm working on) remains true even after superluminal communication, free unlimited global bandwidth and science fiction snarks. But let's just list the concerns first. I believe there's 2 categories: 1) Increasing the block size may increase centralization. - Mining centralization will get worse (for example, China's aggregate hashrate becomes even larger) - Government control in a single jurisdiction could enforce transaction censorship and destroy irreversibility of transactions - Some use cases that rely on a decentralized chain (like trustless options) cannot rely on Bitcoin anymore. - Reversible transactions will have proportional fees rather than flat ones. - Some use cases that rely on flat fees (like remittance) may not be practical in Bitcoin anymore - The full node count will decrease, leaving less resources to serve SPV nodes. 2) Trying to avoid "hitting the limit" permanently minimizes minimum fees (currently zero) and fees in general - If fees' block reward doesn't increase enough, the subsidy block reward may become insufficient to protect the irreversibility of the system at some point in time, and the system is attacked and destroyed at that point in time - Miners will continue to run noncompetitive block creation policies (ie accepting free transactions) - More new Bitcoin businesses may be created based on unsustainable assumptions and consequently fail. - "Free transactions bitcoin marketing" may continue and users may get angry when they discover they have been lied about the sustainability of that property and the reliability of free transactions. Please suggest more concerns or new categories if you think they're needed.