So, it's not really why we don't do it, more like what the f**8 we're going to do if we don't do that!
In my opinion, it is unlikely that everyday transactions will predominantly occur on-chain. Most on-chain transactions will likely be conducted by large institutions that will contribute to second layer solutions. In situations where there is a high transaction volume, priority will probably be given to big companies most of the time. Conversely, during periods of low volume, regular individuals can consolidate their inputs and the like.
This is merely speculation. I cannot accurately predict what will happen, I'm just guessing. What I do know for certain is that a future where every single transaction is conducted on-chain is just not sustainable. I agree that 1 MB isn't much, but the same can be said for limits such as 4, 8, 16, or 32 MB in the long run. There are still inherent issues that prevent widespread adoption. Point of sale transactions, for instance, remain vulnerable to double-spending compared to second layer solutions. Transaction fees continue to pose a problem, though somewhat alleviated. Also, security is compromised as miners gain a time advantage during block propagation, and there's also the concern of limited disk space.
Dynamical or why not implement the opposite of halving for the block size, we have a halving in the reward a doubling in the block size.
Here are a few reasons:
- Doubling the block size limit doesn't necessarily lead to double transactions, nor to double earnings.
- At some point it simply breaks away from the ideal. There won't ever be infinite transactions, but the limit heads towards that.
- If you do know the ideal (which you don't, as I've let it be implied), why not setting it in the first place?
And do you have a timeline on how long it will take for every single let's say US citizen to open and close let's say twice a second layer LN channel with a 1MB block?
There isn't a single second-layer solution developed.