> Yes. There might come a time when block reward..

And if artificial scarcity to increase miner revenue is not only not objectionable but desirable as well as entirely effective, there is no reason that this should not be done repeatedly, and right now.

Of course, that's not actually true, and that's why it's not happening. The argument is invalid.

> Briefly. And 50$ is not an unreasonable fee

In a competitive free market, any fee is an unreasonable fee if it's imposed ignorant of the fact that you are in a competitive free market that doesn't impose the artificial scarcity promoting production quotas your inefficient operation does. This describes the state of every other blockchain absent the sabotaged and useless BTC chain.

> Which is completely fine because small fraction of bitcoin value comes from it being transferred. Bulk comes from it being scarce and secure

A pile of dogshit from a particular dog now deceased close to the reactor
meltdown site in Chernobyl is both scarce and secure, it is also completely valueless because it has no utility and even as fertiliser there is a universe of potential substitute goods available. BTC has no value beyond stupid people heavily invested in it unaware they have been flatly conned and not understanding how any of this works or what the original plans actually were. The end result of that is obvious.

> Single miner can ensure flow of the blocks once difficulty adjusts

Which will never happen if the rate of the departure of hashing power exceeds the rate at which the chain proceeds towards the next DAA interval. That rate is not even 8% per day. The chain will be destroyed entirely if hashing power departs faster than that, and the only way to "fix it" will be a hard fork, which BTC morons have been propagandised to believe is dangerously fatal, and thus as a final fate for BTC it can't be ruled out.

> There's no reason for any bitcoin user to give any transaction fee if all transactions fit in the next block.

Flatly wrong no matter how many times you repeat it, because miners choose which transactions go in the block and their choice is not contingent solely upon available block space.

> From what I'm getting, you don't only want to increase block size but also change how should fees work.

I don't care at all what BTC does, I consider it a useless lost cause at this stage and have no opinion of it beyond that. My point was many other chains are looking at many other alternatives to ensure that their chain is the one that ends up with the most economically optimal usage of hashpower, and I cited an example of that as something I had heard come up in discussions for BCH.

> Maybe you should focus your advocacy efforts on other crypto that's closer to your liking because you don't seem to like anything about bitcoin except for the name and perhaps popularity that it managed to accumulate from the ground up and hold without your enlightened guidance.

I was a Bitcoin maximalist from the very beginning, largely ignored every single other coin in existence, and frankly when Mike Hearn left his description of the situation and the suggestion that the chain would actually refuse to scale in the future even when the demand was clearly there was so puzzling to me I flatly refused to even believe it until the 2017 BCH split actually happened and everything unfolded exactly as he had said.

You and those like you don't seem to grasp just how utterly idiotic what has been done in BTC actually is. It is so foolish, and the justifications for the behaviour so hamfisted and constantly shifting, that the only reasonable conclusion to explain it is outright sabotage.

And I do focus my advocacy efforts solely on other crypto, and warn people in as strong terms as I am able since the BCH fork that BTC has been outright sabotaged to uselessness and is very likely doomed.

> They prefer the solution that is most profitable for them. Or are you saying that they cry all the way to the bank?

Every miner who I've spoken to about the situation who actually understands what happened is indeed very concerned for the long term health of the ecosystem given the equilibrium which the BTC sabotage has resulted in. Not a single one of them ever intended for this idiocy to actually take hold, and yes, we're all just trying to make the best out of an insanely bad situation. If you want to call that "crying all the way to the bank" go right ahead.

> I have no idea who that is.

The person largely responsible for the sabotage in question, and from whom the flatly wrong arguments you are attempting to throw around actually originated.

> But statistically you will want to mine bitcoin because it's built to be most profitable for you.

Until it's not, and then you will very happily see it destroyed and be relieved this insane episode is over and done with.

> Can you show me some data that indicates that bitcoin is close to dying?

Everything we've discussed so far.

> Also, why do you give so much of a damn if BTC dies or not?

Because all fatally stupid ideas should die, and the more fatally stupid, the more so this is. BTC is about the most fatally stupid architecture I have ever heard of in my entire life, and its continued existence is an affront to sensibility.

> here are so many cryptos. You can jump ship at any time. Why are you so attached to bitcoin?

I jumped ship to actual Bitcoin BCH back in 2017 already. I'm not attached to BTC at all, I only want it to die.

> General remark: When I think something is stupid, innane, idiotic, moronic and useless that's usually for me an indication that I don't quite understand the thing or at least the reasons why a lot of seemingly reasonable people pursue it and I should learn more

Great, follow your own logic and stop bothering me, go watch Jersey Shore re-runs, a lot of seemingly reasonable people pursue that as well as a raft of other things I'm equally confident as marking out as absolutely without value. In the meantime, I'll be happy with the observation of many decades of experience in the technology industry which tells me what the BTC chain doing is in fact utterly idiotic, completely unjustified as a point of fact, and it has indeed been the victim of a well financed external sabotage attack.

> Do you admit ignorance often?

I admit ignorance whenever I know that I am ignorant of something, or when I find out post-hoc that I was previously ignorant of something. This doesn't apply in this case, it is you and the people like you who are so clearly and flatly wrong, and it is extremely easy to in detail dismantle your position and explain precisely why.