I read on this forum that a larger block size wouldn't necessarily mean less blocks since blocks are mined every ten minutes, and this is why block size should remain smaller -- Wouldn't a full node use nearly the same space for large or small block sizes? . The argument was that larger blocks lead to less decentralization, which is bad for some reason. So now Bitcoin Cash is out with its larger block sizes. So have all the fears of larger block sizes come to bass with Bitcoin Cash?
So have all the fears of larger block sizes come to bass with Bitcoin Cash?
I think most BTC proponents would say no, the fears have not passed. It is not a black/white situation in which a cryptocurrency immediately fails or succeeds, the effects of the engineering decisions may take years to play out fully.
For example: in regards to the extra load put on full nodes by larger block sizes, over the last seven days the average BCH block has been ~1/3 the size of the average BTC block. So at this point it is not valid to say "big blocks work, proven by BCH", since the average BCH node load has actually been lower than the average BTC node load. The BCH network will have to grow substantially in order to give an accurate, real-world look at the effects of larger blocks. It is perhaps worth noting that I don't think anyone will argue larger blocks will increase decentralization, some users simply argue that decentralization is less important than a quick, linear scaling solution.
In general, remaining decentralized is important, it helps ensure the individual user retains their sovereignty. Centralization reduces the ability of the user to have a say in the code that governs their value.