If we perpetually increase capacity ahead of demand, fees will never rise. Transactions will always be free or nearly free for users. This will not end well in a future where block subsidy ends and fees alone must support the security of the network (by incentivizing miners). If we did this, we are basically depending on mass adoption and skyrocketing price being guaranteed. That's probably not a good engineering decision.
The demand is there already.
By not increasing capacity, mass adoption becomes impossible. It's already not possible for just 1 million people to make a few transactions per day, let alone much more people.
I don't think you understand what I said. The demand
should outweigh capacity if fees are to rise. And fees must rise significantly if the chain is to remain secure many years from now. And regarding capacity....firstly, Segwit, Schnorr and other optimizations + LN will drastically increase capacity. Secondly, it's not clear that fees are discouraging adoption at all---data, please? For those that view BTC as digital gold, 10 or 20 cent fees are not discouraging at all.
Even though I understand, and quite agree to a rise in transaction fees, I don't like the idea that demand should outweigh capacity. Do we want
BTC to be a rich guy's club or to become the world's leading cryptocurrency, and to change the world?
Look at Ferrari. They artificially limit their production. They could sell more but they don't to protect the value of their brand, and the exclusivity of their products. I guess it suits them well, but you must look at Ford or Toyota to see who is changing the world.
I don't think it has anything to do with being a "rich guy's club." Being able to run a node shouldn't be a "rich guy's club" either. And though mining already is, do we want to exacerbate that? Maxblocksize is very much about preventing the externalities that limit node/miner participation into more and more centralized groups.
I think "artificial limit" implies a misconception. Bitcoin as a system was a matter of
designing a system that optimally aligns market incentives to ensure a decentralized, secure network. We cannot have talk about an "artificial limit" without mention that this limit is specifically designed to ensure decentralization and security---the former by maximizing the ability to run nodes and participate in mining, and the latter by forcing users to pay some of the cost of confirmed transactions, rather than externalizing all costs onto nodes and miners (forcing some off the network). I take exception when people try to make this about "free markets vs. central planning."
Bitcoin was centrally planned from Day 1; the entire point is trying to design the optimal system, with regard for all of its parts. The point wasn't to disregard most of the system so we can guarantee cheap/free transactions for users.