Won't large blocks be either insufficient or centralised?

Some things in life are black & white, but most are shades of grey.

One incredibly common misconception (particularly among BTC adopters), is the idea that BCH "can't work" because increasing the blocksize would be "not enough" (ie the correct acknowledgement that an increase of only a magnitude or so from 1MB blocks would still be too small to supply the entire world access to Layer 1) combined with the false assumption that the only option besides that is to create blocksizes so large that BCH became instantly centralised. This is used to reinforce claims that Layer 2 scaling like Lightning Network is the only feasible solution for increasing Bitcoin capacity.

julian256 falls into the trap of black/white thinking. Source

This is a false dilemma at its best. The only options aren't "A" or "Z", there's actually quite a large (& constantly changing) spectrum between those two options as hardware improves, software improves & Bitcoin adoption proceeds. The only options aren't 10 MB blocks or 10 TB blocks, there's many orders of magnitude of flexibility between them. Furthermore, the optimal point between them is not static, it moves as time passes - both ideas that are commonly accepted in the BCH community but erroneously rejected in the minds of many BTC supporters.

The Bitcoin Cash community operates on a "goldiblocks" approach with ABLA, in order to maintain low fees while keeping the centralisation pressure on infrastructure providers (e.g. node operators, miners, wallet providers, block explorers) within reasonable grounds.

• Does the BCH community intend to eventually reach "very large" blocksize in the Terabyte or greater range? Yes.
• Does this mean the community supports Terabyte blocksizes today/right now, or any time before it would be feasibly supported by both user demand, technical upgrades like pruning & relatively affordable hardware for end users? NO!!

This is a decades long process, with plenty of time to adapt to changing circumstances. The BCH community takes a scientific approach to assessing the limits of today's technology, while remaining (justifiably) optimistic about the improvements that will be unlocked & available in the future.

Cause of confusion

This kind of misunderstanding is perhaps so common due to the very long list of possible causes:

• Lack of nuance: The inbuilt human tendency to black/white thinking (people are bad with nuance).
• Propaganda: Indoctrination by ridiculously extensive disinformation campaigns.
• Tu Quoque Fallacy: A false assumption that BCH will inevitably encounter the same difficulties as BTC.
• Technical misunderstanding: A lack of technical understanding of the feasibility of scaling to global currency size.
• BSV conflation: Not understanding that moronic advocates of instantly unlimited blocksizes were expelled from the BCH community to BSV in 2018 (many, many years ago, but information travels slowly if not paying attention).
• Internal insecurity: A psychological need to cling to permanent truth in a changing universe, ie. an ignorance or refusal to understand Bitcoin blockchain pruning.
• Trauma: A lasting aversion to ideas or sources of information tainted in their mind by the traumatic events of The Blocksize War.

All of these problems can be addressed, but it takes open-minded time & understanding for individuals to get past those hurdles & even more for this detailed information to become "common knowledge" in general.

See also: What's wrong with Bitcoin BTC?