Do you really think that the number of full nodes has been dropping because of the 1 MB block limit though? Not for other reasons? Is it really so onerous to run a full node now that the average computer cannot handle it?
The optimal block size is obviously 0, as these blocks will propagate through the network the fastest, thus lowering the orphan rate to nearly 0, and will require the least resource usage (bandwidth, hard disk space, CPU cycles) for full node operators.
... see what I did there?
Re:The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary
by pstrateman on Wednesday August 12, 2015 @03:49PM
(#10050185)
The blocksize limit is fundamentally a trade off between capacity and usability.
Too far in either direction is bad.
The evidence strongly supports the argument that the current 1MB limit is too high.
Re:The Bitcoin Blocksize: A Summary
by davidgerard on Wednesday August 12, 2015 @04:15PM
(#10050331)
Describing what miners are doing already, with no-transaction blocks and not bothering to verify existing blocks?
The optimal current block size is without a doubt smaller than 1MB.
The two most important metrics for block size limit are node count and miner validation.
Node count has been continually dropping for years despite heroic efforts to improve performance in bitcoin core.
Miners have been found to be blindly mining blocks in an attempt to reduce their orphan rates.