Is the fees argument counter productive?

[cafucafucafu]

They say the block size should be kept low so that transaction fees can increase for the future when no block rewards will be available.

But if the block size is increased then there will be more transactions to provide fees.

So it is not necessary that the block size should be small for more fees.

[S4VV4S]

Right now I don't think that increasing the size will increase the number of trasactions.
We do not have 1MB blocks now.
The blocksize increase is for future use.

But I see your arguement there and you have a point.

[valiz]

They say the block size should be kept low so that transaction fees can increase for the future when no block rewards will be available.

But if the block size is increased then there will be more transactions to provide fees.

So it is not necessary that the block size should be small for more fees.

This is a common misconception. It's like saying that if we sell 1000 apples for $1 today, then we can sell 8000 apples for $1 tomorrow. It's economics 101, supply and demand. You increase the supply, you don't get more demand, you get lower prices instead.

In our case, let's assume we will have 100 MB blocks tomorrow. Why would you pay a fee? Fees would be 0.

[cafucafucafu]

They say the block size should be kept low so that transaction fees can increase for the future when no block rewards will be available.

But if the block size is increased then there will be more transactions to provide fees.

So it is not necessary that the block size should be small for more fees.

This is a common misconception. It's like saying that if we sell 1000 apples for $1 today, then we can sell 8000 apples for $1 tomorrow. It's economics 101, supply and demand. You increase the supply, you don't get more demand, you get lower prices instead.

In our case, let's assume we will have 100 MB blocks tomorrow. Why would you pay a fee? Fees would be 0.

Actually we are all assuming that demand will increase. I.e. demand for those blocks will increase. We are talking about the future, not about tomorrow.

Miners have to ask themselves: What will bring about greater revenue in the future; smaller blocks with higher fees or bigger blocks with lower fees?

I vote for bigger blocks because I think the blockchain should be for as many people as possible. It shouldn't just be for the elite.

Smaller blocks is a case of elitism.

[meono]

They say the block size should be kept low so that transaction fees can increase for the future when no block rewards will be available.

But if the block size is increased then there will be more transactions to provide fees.

So it is not necessary that the block size should be small for more fees.

This is a common misconception. It's like saying that if we sell 1000 apples for $1 today, then we can sell 8000 apples for $1 tomorrow. It's economics 101, supply and demand. You increase the supply, you don't get more demand, you get lower prices instead.

In our case, let's assume we will have 100 MB blocks tomorrow. Why would you pay a fee? Fees would be 0.

You assume that the business already saturated its market share...

Wow and you got a nerve to talk about Economics 101.

The whole point of the blocksize debate is to increase btc user base, this is not a zero sum game, we're looking forward to the influx of new users.

[AgentofCoin]

...

...
In our case, let's assume we will have 100 MB blocks tomorrow. Why would you pay a fee? Fees would be 0.

Even if the block cap was raised to 100MB, the miners could still cap their individual block sizes down to 1MB.
Raising the cap allows the miners to have a choice to add more tx (and assuming with fees) when they want to or in times of need.

In theory, even if we raised the 1MB cap, miners could all agree to cap their blocks to 1MB forever anyway.
That is my understanding at least.