But in normal economics , higher prices always decreases usage , while lower prices might not increase usage it never decreases it.
Ok, that argument is on-topic, I admit. But I don't agree with your conclusions.
The "low capacity" would be a problem if Bitcoin's capacity was so low that it would severely restrict the "normal functioning". But as we've seeing this is not really the case. Not only is there still normally enough space in the blocks, we also have second layers like LN.
Forcing an artificial scarcity to drive transaction prices higher , is more fraud than function.
I think we have a different meaning of the word "fraud"
Bitcoin's rules are transparent. Everybody who doesn't agree with them can change to LTC, Doge, or whatever. I'm doing that too, for some transactions, as I'm not a maximalist (even if I consider Doge currently grossly overvalued, but Doge has always pumped and dumped in a funny way).
But we're talking about the incentives for miners here, to lobby for driving the blocksize up or not. This is why I wrote in my previous post that there would have to be a significant movement of users changing from Bitcoin to altcoins, to the way the Bitcoin miners' business model is threatened. Only in this case it is rational for them to lobby for a higher block size.
As we can see with the famous "Bitcoin dominance" chart, and Bitcoin price evolution in general, this exodus hasn't happened at all. I predict there will be a higher market share for altcoins like LTC in the future but they won't threaten Bitcoin's leadership, because Bitcoin systemically offers a higher security.
You're going off-topic again with the argument about the 10 MB blocks.
It will only grow to match the transactions made.
is not taking into account the likely increased spam and inefficient transactions. But again, that's not what the OP asked (there are attempts to derail the thread into the usual tiring bigblocker/smallblocker discussion, but I won't participate here).
To be fair you're returning later back on topic:
Miners did lobby for a higher blocksize during the segwit arguments, they were ignored and threatened by Core Devs with an algorithm change that would brick their ASICs. Which is why, you don't hear a peep from them anymore about increasing BTC blocksize.
Oh, the evil Core devs. But they haven't the power to decide who uses which Bitcoin client. They have a voice and they are heard by lots of users, that's true. But everybody can publish his own fork and make it popular. No non-Core fork has got enough power to be able to change the rules.
I think a part of the miners were lobbying for a higher transaction capacity in 2016/17 because of unfounded fears about LN, and because they miscalculated the incentive structure. But LN requires lots of on-chain transactions, too; only not as many as if
everything was on-chain.
I think the miners are pretty happy with the situation now: Segwit has increased the capacity a bit to prevent bottlenecks (as I wrote, a slow/small increase could be still attractive for them) but the block space scarcity is still there, so they can still achieve high fees in the "rush hours" in EMEA and the Americas.