Transaction fees is another setback that should be looked into, you don't pay to spend fiat but you have to pay to spend bitcoins.
Freedom isn't free. The decentralized network needs a reason to exist. The mining subsidy isn't permanent. Bitcoin's security model must slowly move from coin base rewards to transaction fees. Early adopters have been spoiled by the high coin base reward / low transaction fee bootstrapping period.
Fiat has the wonderful hidden fee (or tax) known as inflation, which is chosen at the whim of a board of directors (to enrich the few at the expense of the many).
trying to keep capacity down to force a fee war today is stupid to a magnitude of 21million.
fee's are not important today, the block reward exists.
fee's are just considered an unneeded bonus right now.
the fee's become important in 20+ years, it may even be longer then that if we keep bitcoin being useful to have the side effect of a larger market cap so that the reward amounts to a healthy fiat value to cover miners electric bill.
increasing capacity means more people. more people means less each person has to pay to get to a combined total that benefits miners.
this is something that can happen naturally without impacting people.
as for thinking that spending 10cents is meaningless.. that is the mindset of the western world and the mindset of people only caring about market caps. bitcoin needs and should remain useful. afterall once people start to think 20cents fee is acceptable and a $10 holding is just spam then you are just throwing people out of bitcoin making it as corrupt as the fiat banking world.
and this is coming from someone with hundreds of bitcoins.. but atleast i can put aside my greed and see bitcoin for what it is and what it should be
Every discussion isn't about the block size. The fact is fees
need to take over as the mechanism for securing the block chain. It should be gradual so we don't have the shock of spoiled brats crying about high fees (which we already have today with the currently ridiculously low fees). The block reward has halved twice now, it's perfectly reasonable to expect fees to start taking some of the burden, today.
[offtopic block size debate pushed into every thread franky1 posts in]
Bitcoin is not, and never will be, suited for mainstream mundane transaction volumes while every-transaction-is-stored-on-the-permanent-record-which-every-full-node-must-keep-forever. It's nonsensical to even try and achieve such a thing. Bitcoin can't compete with Paypal or VISA (or any other centralized service) when it comes to everyday transactions. And it shouldn't. Bitcoin provides censorship-proof value transfer, and any and every change must be approached with that in mind. Ignoring it while trying to compete with centralized services is a sure fire way to destroy the very thing that makes Bitcoin useful.
Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.
Franky1, your problem is that you can't see the forest for the trees. That and you think every discussion is about the block size.
[/offtopic block size debate pushed into every thread franky1 posts in]