Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...
Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive? If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core. This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.
A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees.
Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.
A bit like saying why would companies build bigger factories when a small one would do?
Learn economics. Bigger blocks = more txs = more fees.
Ridiculous, here's why (From Blockchain.info):
Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2014 = $5830
Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2017 = $271,104
x46.5 increase.
Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?
Not to mention, even with a backlog of transactions, miners are still producing empty blocks.
1. blockstream(CORE) removed all the fee controlling code. = core caused a fee rise. not pools.. core become bankers by not relying on code to control things and just instead shouted "just pay more"
2. blockstream(CORE) bypassed node consensus by going soft = core gave the only veto power to pools for segwit... pools didnt have control before core gave it to them. pools dont have control over other implementation proposals
3. other implementations are sticking with the standard NODE and POOL symbiotic consensus. thats has existed since day one and made no threats of splits/ PoW changing / banning nodes
4. re-implementing a new 'priority' formulae can actually reward lean average users with cheap fee's while penalising bloated repeat spenders (moving funds very block spammers).
5. there is no need to push fee's to $1+ a tx EVER. far better to naturally grow the blocksize in levels nodes can handle (even core admit 8mb is 'safe') thus allowing a 2015 10c fee ($220 total) to be upto $1760 total just by allowing more 10cent tx's in. not forcing $1 fees by holding tx count limits down to cause a upto $2k total (which pools dont need right now anyway)
6. lastly to debunk your mindset that pools want fee's .. i will hand you your own words "miners are still producing empty blocks.". if they cared about fee's they wouldnt empty block.. logically