It suggests that attempting to manipulate variables such as block size to achieve a specific, yet undefined, security budget is not appropriate due to the unpredictable effects it may have on total revenue for miners. The conversation shifts towards the idea that increasing block size could potentially lead to higher revenue for miners, challenging the notion that larger blocks would automatically result in lower total fees collected. This perspective is supported by the argument that if more capacity is provided, it will likely spur the creation of new use cases for Bitcoin transactions, which users are willing to pay for.

Furthermore, the discussion delves into the practical implications of larger block sizes, specifically the increased costs associated with storing, transmitting, and analyzing more extensive chain data. It highlights the importance of conducting analyses to understand these additional resource consumption costs fully. Additionally, the conversation explores the affordability of transaction fees from the perspective of individuals with varying income levels across the globe. By contemplating what people in different economic situations might be willing to pay for a Bitcoin transaction, it presents a hypothetical scenario where 32 MB blocks could accommodate significantly more transactions per block at a reasonable fee rate, potentially resulting in a substantial security budget based on transaction fees alone.

Overall, the dialogue underscores the complexities and uncertainties involved in determining Bitcoin's optimal security budget and block size. It advocates for a balanced approach that considers potential revenue from increased block sizes and the accompanying costs and challenges. The focus is on fostering Bitcoin's success by accommodating growth and usage expansion while carefully considering the economic implications for both miners and users worldwide.