None of them are good arguments against a moderate blocksize increase, such as 2 MB or 4 MB. (Segwit is an extremely inefficient increase, which in practice onl

None of them are good arguments against a moderate blocksize increase, such as 2 MB or 4 MB. (Segwit is an extremely inefficient increase, which in practice only increases it from 1 MB to around 1.4 MB.) And none of these limits have been tested or examined by those who oppose it. The claim is, it seems, that the current limit is perfect. Or that hard forks are "too dangerous", despite coins like Ehereum, Monero and Bitcoin Cash proving that to be false again and again. And Bitcoin also had an emergency hard fork fix (which never split the chain) when they fixed the recent infinite inflation bug. Oh and they've had a hard fork once before too. Also with storage being so cheap it's not a valid argument. Time to propagate blocks between miners is the biggest, with initial sync coming in at a distant second.