oh please ... normal fees 0,02 mBTC and with the stress test from july/august ? ====> 0,1 mBTC
2 cents.
Of course those rates aren't problematic but at some point it will.
That may be true at some point. However, it is dangerous to make grand assumptions about how adoption, transaction growth and miners' incentives will look 5, 10, 20 years into the future. We simply cannot know, and heretofore unconsidered incentives and/or centralizing trends may occur in the future. Thus, the most responsible way to deal with capacity is incrementally, with consideration for maintaining incentives that favor security.
That's sounds like a nice approach but only IF hardforking and achieving consensus would be easy and it doesn't seem to be the case actually...
Why not just let it go and have a wait and see approach? Only use a hard fork if things seems to go problematic.
I'll throw that right back at ya.
Why not take a "wait and see" approach to capacity, incrementally increasing capacity
as needed? Rather than making arbitrary assumptions about capacity that we may or may not need far into the future?
Implementing a hard fork on the basis of consensus shouldn't be easy, as it puts all users at risk.
Well, this is pretty much the direction we are heading right now and probably the reason behind these stress tests.
Imagine you are a big player that have made up capacity previsions and want to bring up new influx of users with mass marketing campaing but can't do it before the system scale enough or otherwise you would just lose your money. At this point what would you do? Personally I would stress test the system to make shit hits the fan forcing the system to scale
before your anticipated influx of users rather than after.
It is pure speculation but from a big business perspective it makes a lot of sense and I think this is what actually going on. Otherwise it would makes no sense to invest so much money bloating the system just for the lulz.
... when you use "recommended fees" WITHOUT THE CROSS in "emit with zero fees". 
