Quote from: MeGold666 on Today at 09:25:13 AM

Let's not forget that higher fees (in BTC terms) are a result of higher transaction count, if Bitcoin will be used only for big transactions as some say then of course transaction count will be smaller than what we have today and thus the fees will be smaller.

No! This logic is flawed.

To get to the point that people "only use Bitcoin for big transactions", fees must be much higher than now.
On-chain transactions are always the safest form of a Bitcoin transaction, compared to Lightning, sidechains and L2s. So people will always prefer on-chain when they can afford it.
In the (unlikely) case that really sidechains and LN become so popular that the blocks become emptier as a consequence, there's still the option to decrease the mainchain blocksize to boost the fee market, like Luke-jr and Paul Sztorc have proposed. (I personally think this is insane from today's point of view, but it may be an emergency strategy if things really go terribly wrong).

Quote from: MeGold666 on Today at 09:25:13 AM

This mining companies are already switching to training AI models as there is more cash to earn, they will not bet hundreds millions of dollars on future Bitcoin growth when they can earn it today from different investments.

Yes, but it's a diversification strategy in times where the mining market is saturated and margins are thin, see also my last answer to stompix. Once difficulty falls enough mining becomes profitable again. And I'm sure that will not mean a 50%+ hashrate/attack cost drop. Let's talk about that again in a year.

By the way what you are aiming for (non-premined, tail emission and bigger blocks) already exists. This list probably contains some options. From the larger ones, Dogecoin has tail emission (and community seems to be open for big block ideas), XMR too, and there are a whole armada of non-premined coins where some should have also a big blocker ethos. I think you should simply support Doge and XMR thus instead of being angry about Bitcoin not following your enlightened ideas

Quote from: stompix on Today at 02:37:40 PM

Of course not, but again, I started from the OP first post, and that has 2140 in it so all my arguments are for that!

Ok, that's so far away that a lot of variables will be in play and we do not even know if Bitcoin will still be needed in 2140

Quote from: Synchronice on Today at 10:39:42 AM

Bitcoin mining companies have farms of ASIC miners which are designed to only do one job, to mine Bitcoin. How can they offer other cloud services

I already wrote that elsewhere: they simply change the hardware. That's no big deal. For example, if a generation of ASICs is phased out because it's no longer profitable, in the sections of their farms they had these old miners running, they simply install "commodity" servers with strong GPUs.