Interesting read. I only understand 1/2 of it though. But I do understand economics and supply/demand. The increase in block size will make no difference in the long run if fees are not addressed for both transactions and nodes. In 12 years, a 20mb block with no transaction fees won't do anyone any good. That said, in this early stage of adoption, fees will cause less adoption.
Letting fees drift up a bit won't end the game, shifting from 1mb to 20mb is drastic.
The problem with keeping it at 1 MB is that fees won't just "drift up a bit". If bitcoin really takes off, there will be so much competition that fees will be worse than Western Union. Imagine how much bitcoin would suck if transaction fees were $1 or $10. People would realize this major flaw just switch to a shitcoin like litecoin which allows 100 times the transactions per second.
In the long run, the 1 MB limit is actually harmful for miners, not only because it would decrease adoption, but because the artificially limited supply (transactions per block) would prevent them from always being able to reach the market equilibrium and maximizing profitability.
I rather do nothing and see if market corrects via people paying more to transact.
The longer we wait and bitcoin grows, the harder it will be to pull off a hard fork.
If becomes a real issue. I rather see people that run a node get paid. nodes moving form 6000 to 15000 would help.
Bigger block size = more adoption
More adoption = more nodes
A 2mb size in 6 months is more conservative Alternative then a 20mb jump now.
I completely agree, but the "lets just sit on our hands and wait until it's too late" plan is just suicidal.
