A $2 coffee or $20 remittance to Africa doesn't belong in the same dataset as billion dollar trans-institutional settlements. If you insist they must cohabitate, Bitcoin will collapse under its own weigh, a hypertrophic dinosaur victim of its own success ready to die in the nearest tar pit or meteor crater.
Yes they do.
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as
trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for
most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party.
-Satoshi
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfEvery single transaction that pays the cost per kB belongs in the blockchain, and the cost per kB should be low enough to make all reasonable transactions feasible. A $2 cup of coffee belongs in the blockchain every bit as much as a $200 payment.
What we need is:
1) charging miners for the cost of network transfer
2) charging transaction creators for the cost of network storage (if their UXTOs are not spent / not feasibly spendable)
3) removing the blocksize limit altogether.