It's been almost two decades since I took a logic course, so please excuse any mistakes. I'm wondering if we can make a simple argument to show that the primary argument by small-block proponents is logically inconsistent.
Start with the following working definition for a centralized p2p network that both small-block proponents and big-block proponents might agree to:
1. A p2p network is "centralized" if a minority subset of that network can constrain the behaviour of participants from outside of that minority subset.
Small block proponents argue that the block size must be constrained in order to keep Bitcoin decentralized (to keep the cost of nodes low):
2. Bitcoin's MAX_BLOCK_SIZE must be sufficiently constrained in order to keep Bitcoin decentralized.
At the same time, small-block proponents argue that node operators and miners should not be able to easily adjust their node's MAX_BLOCK_SIZE nor signal their preferences to the network (i.e., they disagree with what BU is trying to do):
3. If MAX_BLOCK_SIZE were easily adjustable by network participants, it would not be sufficiently constrained.
If it is not the network participants as a whole that constrain MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, it must be a special subset of the network instead:
4. A group of experts should constrain the block size, balancing growth with decentralization.
But this is just another way of saying that "a minority subset of the network should be able to constrain the behaviour of participants from outside that minority subset"! Which is our working definition for a centralized network from #1.
Which means the small-block argument reduces to the clearly false statement that:
5. The network must be centralized to keep it decentralized.
