You're refuting your own argument again. The fractional reserve system is not evil, but the monopoly that governments/central banks on our money systems (traditionally) has caused the system to create it's own busts and recessions. But fractional banking per se is not the problem, rather the lack of competition is the problem. Bitcoin as a settlement system would attend to this problem and it also attends to the inefficiencies of the existing solutions.
Incorrect/disagree. Fractional reserve systems can't scale without a central bank and are economically incompatible as we leave the industrial age and march into the knowledge age.
The banksters model of Bitcoin is antiquated and World Bank NWO directed.
But you are correct on the other points you've argued:High fees are a tax and increases opportunity cost, IT DISCOURAGES USE, simple economics.
That isn't simple economics its a circular argument. IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.
But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.
Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter. In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin. Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.
It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.
You just said changing the Bitcoin block size limit would 'destroy its digital gold properties' and 'would tank the system', then I shown you Satoshi had always wanted to increase the block size limit, a long time ago.
So either Satoshi wanted to 'tank the system' himself, or you are wrong, it can't get any more simpler than that.
Satoshi showed how it could be done if we decided to do it, and the subsequent posts were people complaining on how obviously difficult it would be to remove as time went by. Satoshi never responded but assuming he was smarter than the others its obvious that he realized the truth of this too.
He gave the people a pacifier, an example of how it COULD be done, it was nothing more, and there is nothing more in the quote to suggest he implied more. He basically said, "You can change it, but you all just have to agree when and how" and he disappeared and choose not to participate in this debate.
The higher BTC price gets, the less people that will pay it transaction fees, not everyone is a US or European Citizen.
The only reason that the fees can be so high is if the network utility is valued high enough to support such use. So you can't simultaneously say bitcoin will become irrelevant AND the fees will be high. You would be, again, refuting your own argument. It COULD be true though that many users that use bitcoin for cheap transactions today, would use other currencies (or 2nd layers solutions) for such transactions in the future. But this doesn't speak to the value of the system, because, and like I quoted Szabo and Finney explaining, bitcoin would be very valuable as a high powered settlement layer, and then for that function the higher fees would be completely acceptable.
The higher fees come from transactions that are sending large value. You can't claim that the system will be irrelevant when bigger and more wealth players are using it. Its just not a system for the average citizen and it was never meant to be.
But it is still being adopted because its value is increasing in relation to domestic fiat, which is exactly what fuels adoption, not transaction capacity, and not the cheapness to transact otherwise litecoin etc. would have a billion+ dollar market cap.
Szabo has also laid an extensive argument for bitcoin to function as a settlement system and the purpose and value of it and Finney also discussed this based George Selgins observations and writings/teachings:
I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers.~https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211
