This is precisely my point. If we are billions, then we can't all fit by making on-chain transactions on a daily basis. This is true for 4 MB blocks as much as it is for 40, or for 400 MB. It is only a matter of time before these sizes become considered insufficient as well, and we need to go even higher than that.
And this is the good scenario. For if the adoption (or demand for on-chain transactions) does not follow the block's capacity increase, then the network will not be sufficiently self-sustainable.
Then adaptive block size is the answer. To be honest, I think that Monero is what many Bitcoin enthusiasts and supporters want Bitcoin to be. Maybe it's time to migrate to Monero?
Who is the voter, who is to decide whether to shrink or expand the block size at a given time? I would assume it is the miners, but what would the miners incentive be to expand the block size? I guess it is the sweet spot where resource expenditure divided by the number of transactions lead to the economic optimum. But when we get to the point where the coinbase transaction is getting closer to zero, it might be against what bitcoin was intended to achieve. It will forever be a good place to store value for the very rich because they don't care about the fees. But the network would certainly not be incluse on a global scale.
How dynmaic would or could these adaptive block sizes be?
"Should" is a complex and problematic verb. One person's actions impact another. If you think about it, your transaction occupies the space another person could use. It might sound exaggerated, but your freedom to make on-chain transactions directly influences another person's freedom to do the same. Just because something is considered a "human right" or "privilege" doesn't mean it comes without a cost. Dictate who should bear that cost, and you've essentially created a government.
Second layer solutions aim to minimize your influence on others' freedom as much as possible. That is the goal, in my view.
That's what I think, too. Second layer solutions are similar to small communities having their own required level of security as the number of nodes facilitating/validating those transactions is smaller in a local community than it is on a global scale so to say. But a local community might not require the same level of security whereas someone sending $100 million from A to B wants the highest level of security possible, hence goes for a base layer transaction and pays a fortune in fees, which in relation to the amount transacted is irrelevant again. It wouldn't be the same with adaptive block sizes I think.
Exactly! The red flag is in their names:
TrustWallet - UnTrustWorthyWallet
Craig Wright - Craig Wrong
That was a good one about our beloved Crack Wright!