Innovation is not burning a gigawatt of mining power to process less than 4 transactions per second. Especially when we could increase that capacity by a factor of eight with almost no additional costs.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
The $7/tx subsidy only illustrates how ridiculous the coffees-on-the-blockchain idea is, and how critical it is that BTC become high-powered money rather than yet another retail payment rail.
Those four tps are the most precious rare things in existence. The ability to store and/or transfer value quickly, securely, and without permission is unprecedented. A gigawatt is a small price to pay for the provision of such a modern miracle.
It's adorable you think Honey Badger cares about ignorant Gavinista fuckwit ramblings and desires for a contentious hard fork and governance coup.
Please take your Negative Nancy 'zomg Bitcoin is GOING TO DIEEEEE WITHOUT 2MB RIGHT MEOW' bullshit over to BitcoinObituaries.com.