BTC's 1 MB (or a bit more with segwit accounting) is just hopelessly obsolote, we could easily handle multiples without any issue whatsoever, and it would require a massive increase there after to reach the state of "one or two nodes".
Further, BCH isn't "turning down alternatives". It's a permissionless system after all, and it does have malleability fixes if you want to have layer two for it.
It's BTC who is blocking any on-chain scaling and bet everything on the experimental Lightning Network (that's still experimental mind you).
Ironically this is what is described in the original bitcoin satoshi whitepaper (not 'one or two' obviously), but the math doesn't work out.
Right now bitcoin has a throughput of about 1 KB/s, which is slower than a 14.4 dialup modem. The entire 13 year chain fits on a $40 thumb drive with room to spare. Even 32MB blocks (53 KB/s) maxed out for another 7 years would fit on single $220 12TB hard drive.
Running a node is only really necessary for miners, exchanges or any other major service but it will be trivial for anyone who can watch a youtube video or stream netflix for at least another decade.
But even if there were a reduction in the amount of nodes, and in security vs. 51% attacks (looking at miners' profitability), BCH has shown its willingness to consider tradeoffs and changes.
There will be opportunity to backpedal if the community considers centralization is a bigger risk than adoption difficulty.
I fear BTC's downfall will be caused by its brittleness resulting from the fixed rules.