This particular fork advocating eternal blockchain growth and never-full blocks should indeed be seen as an attack. Check my registration date.
It's the fork that Satoshi long wanted. So you're implying he had been planning to his attack his own creation.
If Bitcoin does not remove the absurd 1 MB restriction, here is what will happen:
Fees will go up when the limit is hit, and people will start using another blockchain to do their transactions. Bitcoin will lose market share, and value, and thus mining revenues and network security will decline.
If the limit is raised, miner transaction fee revenue will continue to increase with transaction volumes, as it has historically:
In response to those claiming that a hard fork to increase the blocksize limit will hurt the miners' ability to collect fee revenue:
The empirical data we have so far does not support the notion that the miners will be starved of fees or that blocks will be full of low fee transactions if the blocksize limit is increased. If we inspect the fees paid to miners per day in US dollars over the lifetime of the network (avg blocksize << max blocksize), we see that total fee revenue, on average, has grown with increases in the daily transaction volume.
The total daily fees, F, have actually grown as the number of transactions, N, raised to the power of 2.7. Although I don't expect this F~N2.7 relationship to hold forever, those suggesting that the total fees would actually decrease with increasing N have little data to support this claim (although, during our present bear market we've seen a reduction in the daily fees paid to miners despite an increase in N.)
Past behaviour is no guarantee of future behaviour, but historically blocks don't get filled with low-fee transactions and historically the total fees paid to miners increases with increased transaction volume.
The empirical data we have so far does not support the notion that the miners will be starved of fees or that blocks will be full of low fee transactions if the blocksize limit is increased. If we inspect the fees paid to miners per day in US dollars over the lifetime of the network (avg blocksize << max blocksize), we see that total fee revenue, on average, has grown with increases in the daily transaction volume.
The total daily fees, F, have actually grown as the number of transactions, N, raised to the power of 2.7. Although I don't expect this F~N2.7 relationship to hold forever, those suggesting that the total fees would actually decrease with increasing N have little data to support this claim (although, during our present bear market we've seen a reduction in the daily fees paid to miners despite an increase in N.)
Past behaviour is no guarantee of future behaviour, but historically blocks don't get filled with low-fee transactions and historically the total fees paid to miners increases with increased transaction volume.
To reiterate: without users facing scarcity created by a limit, average transaction fees have not trended to marginal miner costs, and total transaction fees earned by miners have increased. A dangerous scarcity experiment, at an absurdly low 1 MB/block, is extremely unwise.
