I've already said it a hundred times, doubling capacity at every halving!
Great. Block subsidy is dropping, so let's drop some more to 0 by eliminating the fee market competition!
Nope, that's your opinion, not a certainty, and please don't start comparing again with forks it's like saying that Acombolofulo payments doesn't need worldwide servers for their business
I wasn't even talking about forks. And my "opinion" is just basic economics. If you rise the block size limit, there's more supply of a block size with demand remaining the same. As a consequence, the block reward declines.
At least it's doing something other than praying for a magical fix.
Second layers isn't "praying for a magical fix". It's a work in progress. Here's a list of promising second layer solutions:
https://l2.watch/. "Doing something", which might turn out a terrible decision, merely for the sake of a temporary solution is not the ideal approach for shaping the future of money.
It's just funny that no matter what no matter how many people use bitcoin, no matter how much they use it we should stick to this 1MB block because that will do it no matter what, good that the world population is not going up because I would envision 2500 with 200 billion people all competing to get their tx in the same 1 MB block.
More complaining here, as usual.
I've already said it, there is only one, and I am also all ears what do you think the solution would be?
Layer 2, with careful OP code activation through softforks. This could allow solutions such as sharing one UTXO with multiple users to be implemented.
With 10 times bigger blocks, fees still won't be zero. There will be more transactions and more people could use Bitcoin. That means more people pay fees, so the total fee will still pay millions to miners.
What's plan B in the plausible scenario that the people that use it as currency don't do a 10x?