Frankly, I don't see any reasoning in your post, just insults, some general phrases, vague points and baseless statements. Well, I couldn't expect more from a crazy ordinals fanboi.
I'll make more of an effort to remain civil. It's just frustrating that only a few people seem to be looking at the big picture.
It's a question of priorities. The lesser of two evils, if you will.
If you sacrifice what makes Bitcoin matter in order to make it faster or cheaper, you're making it worse.
My list of priorities goes something like this:
1. Open-source
2. Permissionless / Censorship-resistance / "freedom" / etc.
3. Secure / Strong hash rate / alignment of incentives to secure the chain
4. Decentralisation / sufficient node count
5. Fixed supply / 21 million BTC / predictable emission
6. Reasonable privacy / Pseudonymous
7. Efficient / Fast / Cheap
During the "blocksize civil war", some (myself included until I learned why it was wrong) argued that we should sacrifice number 4 in favour of Bitcoin being faster and cheaper. So if I now don't believe in giving up my number 4 priority to make Bitcoin faster or cheaper, then I'm guessing you can understand how I feel about my number 2 priority. As such, I have to be willing to suffer silly pictures,
even though I'd rather not, because the alternative is worse.
And finally, a letter from one of my customers:
Hello,
Due to high fees and congestion on BTC crypto network/blockchain, it became impossible for me to pay for the invoice.
Current transfer fees are about $19-$50 on average, which would mean I would pay 2 x more for the transfer than for the *censored* itself.
In your reply to that customer, did you point out that they could opt to include a lower fee and, as a trade-off, the transaction would take longer to confirm? High fees aren't compulsory. When the network is busy, you can either choose to have a fast transaction or a cheap one.
People accept congestion on the roads as a fact of life. Is it reasonable for people stuck in traffic to say that certain groups of road users should be discriminated against, or that if it carries on like this that everyone will simply stop using roads? I don't personally see how it's justified to make those same arguments here. Sometimes you just have to accept that other people exist. They all have things they're trying to do and there may be times when you might opt to seek a less congested route. That's life. Not everything can be perfect.