Bitcoin is losing it's dominance as a direct result of the greed of the miners. There is no technical reason for keeping the blocksize so low, it's simply politics and human nature: miners are left to decide in their own short term interest and against the interest of the users. This is exactly how old banking behaved and it's sad to see a great dream killed by greed and pointless bickering.
I have paid in excess of $200 in mining fees in the last month. This is forgone revenue coming directly out of my pocket for a business that does not depend on Bitcoin or crypto. This is on par with fees paid to traditional payment gateways at similar volume. I'm already working at adding the option of a leading altcoin which I won't name and passing the Bitcoin fee to the users. It's just a small business but the tide is slowly but surely turning against bitcoin in the payment arena.
The idea that Bitcoin can act as a "store of value" and only deal with large transactions is delusional. Bitcoin is technically inferior to many of the new altcoins, it's only redeeming feature is the strong network effect it has gained, everybody speaks bitcoin so it makes sense to buy and trade in bitcoins. Once end users switch to newer and better performing altcoins, Bitcoin is dead.
This is a sentiment I'm having since quite a while, but for different reasons. It is inherent in its design. The small bloc is indeed a problem, but it is part of its "frozen" design. My take on crypto currencies is now this: there are two kinds of crypto currencies: there are bitcoin-like, which are "immutable", frozen for ever ; and there are centralized developer coins, like ETH, DASH, Monero etc.... who have the habit of hard forking and evolving, but are also centralized with god-like dev powers that can do anything, any time.
Almost all of them have terrible design flaws ; but those that have centralized evolution, can try to improve ; the others are what they are, for ever, with their flaws. The principal flaw of almost all crypto is the terribly deflationary nature of them (ironically, it is boasted as their monetary superiority), which turns them into speculative assets, and will never allow them to become reliable main stream currencies. That said, them being highly volatile, but often also quite high-priced assets during their "time of adoption" (that is, when greater fools are still flowing in), they can be USED to transfer value and act as a kind of "payment channel", on the condition of getting in and out again very quickly (due to volatility, which would turn a payment otherwise in a speculative operation).
When using crypto as payment system, actually, the coin you use is in fact of no importance, from the moment that the customer can get them easily on exchanges, you can easily convert them back, and the transaction happens quickly, reliably and at low cost. There can be extra requirements, and my own take is that the main reason to go through the hassle of using crypto for payments, is that it is a payment that cannot easily be done with the normal fiat system. So one might like to use an obfuscated chain like monero, or ZEC. (I wouldn't trust DASH too much for that, even though it is still better than bitcoin or litecoin in that respect). If you're not into crypto speculation, on the side of the customer, or on the side of the merchant, there's no reason to keep the coins for any longer than needed (volatility risk), so the longevity of the coin doesn't really matter, it only serves for this particular payment.
Of course, you might want to use a crypto that does have *some* reliability and *some* volume, because of the hassle of implementing the payment system, you can't change the portfolio of currencies you accept for payment every 5 minutes. So using crypto number 500 on coinmarketcap is maybe not a good idea, but if you hit in the first 50 ones, that can do the thing.
Using crypto as a long term "store of value" doesn't really exist in my mind: only long term hodler speculators are in this for a long time. They don't want to "hold" their value, they want to become "immensely rich".
The nasty thing with crypto "immutability" is of course that it cannot really evolve ; so in as much as design errors are frozen in, and tech gets old, the only thing to do is leave the chain for a more modern one.