We should absolutely avoid the danger of instilling into Bitcoin users some kind of belief that they have a right to free transactions. Nothing in life is free and the costs of security & decentralization cannot forever be externalized to nodes & miners.
In that sense it is perfectly reasonable to suggest we should strive to keep block size limit as close as possible to actual network demand. Flex cap proposals are interesting in this aspect.
Those transactions aren't free for the user even if the miners eat the cost. They STILL have to suffer exchange rate risk while using bitcoin. If they have to pay a fee higher than nominal WHILE BITCOIN IS STILL IN ALPHA, for the vast majority of people, that just isn't worth it.
Miners have to subsidize transaction costs to bootstrap usage or this baby will die in its crib. That's why you're getting the goddamn block reward. I am the customer. I am the user who buys your fucking coins. What am I getting for my money if I have to take this monster risk and have to pay a fee anyway? VISA gives me cash back for chrissakes. They are your competition. If you can't beat them, you won't earn their customers.
Don't you small block fuckers know how business works?
This post is full of misguided assumptions.
It should come as a rational observation considering the shortcomings you have pointed out that there exist absolutely no incentive to purchase bitcoins to make purchases. No amount of scaling is going to incentivize mainstream consumers to go through such hoops for a low-cost/free transactions as most of the time they don't pay for the transaction anyway, merchants eat them. You are correct that there is absolutely no way for Bitcoin to compete with VISA as a consumer payment processor and again, no amount of blocksize scale is going to change this.
The reasonable thing to ask then is do we really want Bitcoin to compete with Visa or is there another, possibly more valuable, use case for Bitcoin? What about digital gold? That sounds like an area where Bitcoin could thoroughly outcompete other players in its current state, with little to no change necessary. Why are we targeting to replace payment processors when we could somehow attract the incomparable value that resides in precious metal markets, offshore saving accounts and general safe havens? That sounds like a much more interesting moonshot if you ask me.
As is yours. Making the assumption that bitcoin was never intended to be a transaction system is probably the biggest assumption of them all.
Why would I want to use Bitcoin for transactions? 1) I don't have to go to the bank to get a cashiers check or a deal with questions to withdraw cash for my son's college car. 2) As a business owner I loathed paying fees to credit card companies, so I help other businesses as much as possible by using cash, I use bitcoin when they support it because I know the business will take in more money.
Bitcoin has ALWAYS been a system for transactions, that has never changed, suggesting otherwise is ignoring history and inventing a new future for Bitcoin.
Frankly, I am not really caring where this blocksize debate lands, but being dishonest about Bitcoin and its history with transactions is absurd.
Were do I mention that Bitcoin is not intended for transactions?
There are plenty of legitimate use cases for transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. The purchase of your son's college car might be a good one. Surely you wouldn't mind paying some extra fees to secure this purchase without having to rely on any third party?
As for your hardships as a business owner I am sorry to hear this but rest assured necessary technology will evolve using Bitcoin as a settlement layer and should be able to accomodate you transactions needs in a more efficient, faster and private way than you could ever hope for on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Suggesting that Bitcoin is better at processing large value transactions should not be interpreted as an assumption that Bitcoin "was never intended to be a transaction system".
