Transaction fees MUST replace the block subsidy to secure the network.
Competition for censorship-proof transactions on the most secure decentralized ledger in the world is a good thing.
Only spoiled brats who want to send pennies around the world, instantly, for free, are crying. They could care less about Bitcoin's unique use case which makes it truly valuable.
Yes, transaction fees must replace the block subsidy. So under which scenario would more fees be generated?
a) a full 1mb block with an average fee of .0015
b) an almost full 2mb block with an average fee of .001
If you can fit more transactions into a block, the fee can be a bit lower and still generate more revenue for miners and have less congestion and waiting for the average user. So let's get SegWit done and then when blocks start getting full again (and they will), let's have that moderate blocksize increase. Running at 100% capacity only delivers a poor user experience.
Bitmixer.io for one has addresses that expire in 24 hours. They then DELETE the address & account info. As far as I know, that means any BTC arriving late is GONE. And that would be terrible for the unwary who might lose a big chunk of money when the blockchain is stopped-up...
There are also potential issues with Lightning where a timelock could potentially expire, enabling coin theft by the counterparty if a transaction takes too long to confirm. Whatever scaling solution we opt for, it needs to maintain an equilibrium between the ability for those who want to being able to run a full node without incurring significant cost and the ability for users to transact without the possibility of losing equally significant sums due to delays caused by traffic.