Unpopular and may be at the same time popular opinion on the block size argument related to the ability for everyone to run a full node being necessary for #Bitcoin.

I am not for increase in the block size but I think this all plebs must be able to run a full node shit is the worst argument we have against it.

First space keeps getting cheaper. Second most "plebs" don't run a node already let alone a full node.

Lastly, do we really need all nodes running back to the genesis block. Pretty sure a pruned node that goes back say 5 years is honest as long as you CAN go all the way back if you want to.

This "we all need a node back to genesis" is a dumb argument. Once I have the next block I already trust it.

Have we ever retroactively fixed a 5 year old "error" in the chain? No. Will we ever, no. Do you ever think, I wonder if that transaction from 2016 is still valid, I had better check? No. Why? You understand the tech and are sane that is why.

When we make dumb arguments, we invite attack against our dumb arguments and make the oppositions job easier.

As always I tell anyone wishing to change BTC to get bent. It will change when consensus changes and when consensus changes it is still bitcoin, when it doesn't, it is a shitcoin fork. That is THE argument. That is the protocol layer argument.

Everything else is social, a popularity of ideas argument and those are stupid and always end badly. In a way BTC is like the early US, only the votes of property owners count. You ain't running a node, you don't get a vote.

BCH people are a perfect example, I don't know ONE BCH tard that runs a BCH full node, not one. I tell them you don't even vote in your own republic, fuck the hell off out of mine.