Arguing about the block size in relation to fees seems to be endlessly in vogue.
If fees are the issue, why is there no discussion about creating wallets that can coordinate to slowly raise fees, instead of just 'doubling the fee rate then hitting broadcast'?
Am I missing something obvious here?
The increase in the purchasing power of the satoshis will resolve this.
In the end , a soft fork will resolve the issue.
Sure, as a satoshi becomes worth more, people will care more about how it is spent.
How do you man a soft fork will resolve it? I'm not sure I follow
I highly doubt that would work and quite frankly, why would a user want to pay higher fees?
Feel free to always set your own fees to 100+sat/B, but don't expect the rest of the world to follow.
If it does, then you'd have consensus ;)
The 'funny' thing here is, that decreasing the block size to increase fees would actually be an acknowledgement that bcashers had a valid argument after all (Level 2 kills Level 1).
I think you misunderstood me, my point was that users don't want to pay higher fees, so using a wallet that can most efficiently choose fees is highly desirable.
But ultimately, if a user really wants their transaction to get included in the next block, and they are wealthy enough to not really worry about fees, then they wont worry about fees. I think some sort of fee-coordination would only work to keep the lowest fees lower, it wouldn't matter for high-fee paying users.
Then, yes, I misunderstood you.