The main problem is not how problematic is to get out, but how easy is to change that so you don't have to pack your bags and do it!
It is not easy. It never was.
That is the hard to swallow pill. It is bloody hard to find consensus for a change in decentralized systems. Let alone, a change that will split the network into two separate. The history has shown that people will not follow.
It may be simple to your head, like changing a constant in the code, but I suggest you to confirm this assertion by trying to convince everyone to follow; they won't. Not because increasing the block size is inherently a bad idea (I mean, for some it is), but because they acknowledge that for a network of this shape to work harmoniously, people need to make compromises. Compromises like prioritizing the harmony over their diverse interests and perspectives.
We're talking about a system, actually you brought this up, and made it sound like in a decentralized world your opinion and your voting power means more than in an election...
I never said your opinion matters more than in election. franky1 keeps repeating the same soundbites for years now with such devotion as if he was getting paid. Does anyone give a fuck?
What I said is
people choose what they want. franky1 might someday realize his behavior isn't effective. Repeating the same arguments as if his opinion mattered turns out to be a waste of time. He acknowledges that the Bitcoin network will never comply with his perspectives and ideals. Instead, he sees potential in a neighboring network where the rules are much closer to ideal according to him. It is totally feasible for him to opt-in to that, and completely look down on us with his middle finger raised.
We shouldn't try to fix this as it's going to ruin our golden goose and everyone is comfortable with the $ rather than the utility!
If it wasn't useful, people wouldn't see it as a "golden goose". Somehow it is the most valuable cryptocurrency and least useful according to you. Perhaps people assess its utility differently, not based on the number of on-chain transactions per second. Maybe, I say
maybe, being socially resistant to change outweighs the flexibility of handling 100x more on-chain transactions.
Just be honest with it, you care more about the value than the utility and that is.
If by "utility" you are referring exclusively to the ease and cost-effectiveness of on-chain transactions, then I can easily admit I care more about the overall value. I don't view this entire situation as a competition centered on the ability to handle the highest volume of on-chain transactions.