It has been increased, Segwit.
You're right. There are many users here that have argued that we don't need a block size increase and that any of that is just pure big-blocker bullshit.
there has never been any campaign or group defined as "bigblocker", yes there has been social drama promoted by conservatives..
but most people actually want more transactions.. its only those wanting their altnets to be popularised that dont want bitcoin to prosper
the group that defined the term 'big blocker' are the social drama queens that dont want more transactions
these conservative types started the scripts and memes of "gigabytes by midnight" just to deflect away from the actual community desire of more transactions
segwit did not actually offer more transactions..
even satoshi in 2010 mentioned that bitcoin as it was then, able to offer upto 4200 tx per block. but due to transaction bloat(weighted scripts and new tx formats being added) it never achieved that.
if bitcoin stayed as a 1 input 2 output lean payment system. we would have more transaction averages. without any blocksize changes
yet by adopting lengthy script stuff to pander to custodians businesses. its hurt individual users ability to transact by bringing the transaction average to under 3000
this years average transaction size is not ~250bytes.. but instead its about 576bytes. thus halving the transaction potential of satoshis estimates 11 years ago
so while devs have pandered to offer "bigger blocksize". they still have put some cludgy code in to stifle the amount of transaction throughput that new weight allowance can actually utilise.
'bigger blocks, but only to fit the lengthy weight of cludgy scripts.. not for more transaction multiplying'
no one has ever advocated for more blocksize just to fill it with useless data at same transaction count average.. and yet.. thats whats resulted from segwit
the 'upto 4mb weight".. but then cludge to avoid upto 4x transaction count. making segwit NOT a scaling solution..
. also everyone knows the real purpose of segwit is a gateway transaction format compatible for the use of offramping users to other networks.
..
anyway.. another excuse conservatives want to ignore progressing bitcoin. is that some think more transactions will result in more spam of mixers bloating up the blockspace.
yet there is actually a solution.. yep code. thats the great thing about computers. you can make rules
the simple solution is to make it super super expensive for idiots to just spam the network re-spending 1confirm utxos, block after block.
adding a fee formulae thats NOT just foolish capitalism of "freemarket" (which is aimed at causing everyone to pay premiums). but base it on multiplying sat/byte by the lack of confirms
EG set it at 100 confirms.
and so if you have 1 confirm. you pay (1/100) = 100x
and so if you have 50 confirms. you pay (50/100) = 2x
and so if you have 100 confirms. you pay (100/100) = 1x
that way if your trying to spam a block every block you pay 50x more then someone that makes a tx every 8 hours 20mins. pays 100x more then someone that does a transaction every 16 hours 40mins.
they pretend that making fee rules is impossible.. yet real hard blockchain data shows that a legacy transaction is more expensive than a segwit transaction. thus proving they can make rules to treat certain transactions different than others
there are many ways you can make fee mechanisms to avoid spam, my example is just a small thought on all the possible measures to create a spam prevention fee structure
there are also ways you can make bitcoin more friendly to users to use regularly without the false narrative crap speach of "gigabytes by midnight" /bigblockers. by which more people will use it regularly to then want to invest and protect bitcoin.
..
oh and one last funny part of the conservative game plan.
they cry soo soo much that they dont want bitcoin used for coffee amounts (0.00005000)($2.50)
yet they want to break the most secred law of bitcoin.. the supply amount
they want to produce 1000x more units, purely to make bitcoin more compatible with an altnet because the altnet is broke unless they can break bitcoin to fit.
these altnetters are absolutely lunatics in all their motives to break, stifle and make bitcoin utility drop purely to offramp people onto their network.. and that stuff needs to stop.
bitcoin needs to progress.
anyway..
back to the topic.
if people are concerned about miner income of the transaction fee's.
offramping utility will kill miner income from transaction fee's
less people transacting=less fee's to consume
if they try to make fees more expensive per tx.. even less people will use btc. heck people will stop close sessioning their own altnet tx back to bitcoin and instead swap to altcoins as their altnet exit just to avoid bitcoin fee's. thus popularising altcoins and making bitcoin look like a crap coin no one wants to use