...
When the "other guy" is waiting for a $0.00004 gambling microtransaction that is going to result in them losing their money anyway, I don't see it as an issue.
If you don't think Bitcoin is worth dropping a couple cents to transfer your coins, you can always use paypal or other alternatives.
I really don't think there's any significant number of people who would be looking to transfer ~10 sats. That's not the problem here. The problem is people happily paying those couple of cents (default 0.0001 for <1kb) and still get their txs stuck. The major problem is people currently in control of BTC development see this as something desirable.
To dumb it down, if you have 1 tx/sec capacity and a constant demand for 2 txs/sec, then there will be winners and losers, doesn't matter how much they're willing to pay. Sure, you can make yourself feel better thinking all the txs that didn't go through were spammers or micro-gamblers. I'd still call it a flawed, unreliable, unpredictable model.
...
The facts are that the Bitcoin fee could go up 10x and still be significantly cheaper, safer, faster, and better than any alternative out there.
Disagree on "cheaper, faster, safer" but let's skip this.
10x up in fees is fine? What about 20x, 50x or 100x? You gotta draw a line somewhere, so where is it? And how do you make sure fees stay on desirable level without some sort of central planning?
You don't see Ruth's Chris Steak House trying to beat McDonald's pricing of the McRib...
No idea what RCSH is, but I'm pretty sure that if they had constantly more demand they could cater for, they would be looking to expand their facilities and add more tables in, rather than try to engage customers in a bidding war in order to get seated.
ps. Ever wondered why restaurants (or other businesses) bother to accommodate more customers rather than crippling the capacity to only 1 table and simply charge more?
