Yeah sure. But it's not a good solution really. First of all I don't really want to pay any more. Secondly, if everyone has to do this in order to get their transactions processed in a reasonable time, then nobody is any better off..

> I don't really want to pay more.

That's why it works. Some people are willing to pay a lot more for some of their transactions, and some transactions just can't justify a high fee.

The block size is a security parameter. You increase it, you decrease security. And it's also more of an engineering limitation than most people realize at first appraisal.

We use fees because we don't have better ways to allow more transactions. And it's an active field of study, but most of the gains so far have been very small.

...because every user knows the satoshis/byte ratio of their transaction, right?

And even if they did, we'd even up with a backlog of the same transactions, all paying higher fees. Bitcoin is barely managing 2 transactions/second at the moment, higher fees won't speed this up.

The wallet should handle this for you. No reason that the user should ever realize that there's a Satish/byte ratio. Imagine instead:

"Bitcoin Surge! It's currently 25 cents per transaction to use Bitcoin."

if the fee would be higher on average, do you think that'll attract CPU power from other cryptocurrencies networks?

No, the fees are still insignificant compared to the block reward.

Even if that did, the difficulty would increase and you'd get the same number of transaction/second