Are you that stupid? Miners want competitive fees, they make more money that way. Empty blocks help miners create a backlog and force people to increase fees, that's what miners want, MORE MONEY.
Do you think miners want lower fees? You think they want to help users out? They want to control the blocksize so they can increase it when appropriate so they can make more money not to help users but to help themselves.
the empty block is not about causing a backlog intentionally. its about instead of waiting 10 seconds/minute to validate a block before making a new block its about starting a new block WHILE validating the previous block. thus unable to add new tx to the new block attempt because they are unsure if the first one is all valid..
what you find is that pools do this alot. and after validating a previous block they start adding tx's (each round of using up all the nonces) and the only time you really ever see an empty block is when they are lucky enough to get a solution within seconds(first round) to not have been able to start adding tx's to a block
BTW, you posted a lot of irreverent information to my post AND you still didnt answer my questions," 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?"
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)
replace 2015 with 2014 and you have your answer.
mempool bloat changes.. but based on the last year where mempools average 3-4mb average.. then it would need 4mb blocks to bring conjection down. which to get to or exceed the 2014 fee of upto 10cent would far exceed the totals of 2014 tx fee income.. obviously
You still didn't answer the questions but you did try.
What blocksize will be needed and how many transactions within it will equal both the .10 cent user fees and 2017 level of miner fees ($271,104+)?
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.
That's your argument? "Raising the blocksize is a pointless incentive, therefore we should prohibit it?"
You can't have it both ways: On one hand argue that "oh no there will be no fees and no security if we have big blocks" and on the other hand say "fees will be high anyway".
My argument is, even if miners got BU or some other proposal through that gave them blocksize control, they are not going to raise the blocksize over an amount where they would lose out on rising transaction fees. Meaning, if you want bigger blocks so fees return to .10 cent, it won't happen. If you think they'll cripple one source of income, you're living in la la land.
You're going to need a new argument for blocksize increase because .10 cent fees aint it buddy.
Edit: BTW, I want to see .10 cent fees again (I think that ship has sailed though). I want to see a blocksize increase after SegWit.