https://blog.sia.tech/2016/10/24/a-futu ... ed-future/
I am for bigger blocks, and run a Bitcoin Unlimited node on my Raspberry Pi 2 at home. The article did make me think some, but I think the author made some majorly wrong assumptions. One of the main assumptions was that letting the free market decided the max blocksize would eventually lead to 2-3 centralized nodes, and we would be essentially back to where we were, trusting a new "centralized banking system."
My thoughts are that there is no way that only 2-3 nodes would left able to keep up with the expense of running a node (especially considering bitcoin is global!). As the blockchain grows and grows, surely some people will no longer be able to run their own nodes, but this is a loooong ways off and technology continues to advance and the same free market develops cheaper and better ways to store data.Soon, you've only got 2 or 3 centralized entities left who are capable of keeping up with Bitcoin's scale, and everyone else is left trusting them. And 2-3 massive entities are much easier for governments to regulate and manipulate, and Bitcoin now resembles a modern bank, except for having unique roots.
Even if running a node does become very expensive, there is no way that this will lead to only 2-3 nodes in the whole world! If bitcoin became more mainstream and was used as a global currency, there would be many, many main nodes competing with one another. Every countries government at a minimum would be running a node. And all the "centralized" nodes would provide the best of the best service! The free market wouldn't let them become main nodes if they charged high fees, lied about their transaction history, or provided bad customer service. With no censorship, the free market will cause bitcoin to work no matter what!