If payment systems such as Square adopt Bitcoin for deposits and withdrawals, but use their network for payment transfers, it may take Bitcoin further towards a store of wealth rather than a micro-payment service. This could help to reduce the transaction load whilst increasing the value of Bitcoin.
I haven't heard of Square before, but it could be a good solution.I'm fine with Bitcoin being a store of wealth, as long as I can also use it for small payments. And for small payments, I don't mind using a centralized trusted service provider, as long as it is widely accepted.
If for example Electrum and some other wallets would implement a "small expenses trusted payment processor", I would happily deposit $100 at a time to make many small payments over the months. Think of it as a Lighting Network, but without the trustless aspect.
If I receive many payments, I would move some of it back on-chain, if I make many payments I deposit more funds.
I trust Paypal with much more than $100! Ideally there should be competition, but if Paypal and others start doing the same, we'll end up with different incompatible services that needs something like Shapeshift for transfers between them.
In general I don't really care about how small payments and high fees are fixed, as long as something is done to enable it again.
