As for the 1GB block research you're talking about, it was literally presented 5 days ago. S2X proposal started in May and the fork was planned for next week. The way we want this secure digital money thing to work is that proposals that are controversial or that may affect security are researched and the research is reviewed over many months or years.
I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW, but we know -- from experience -- that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money [3].
[0] https://blog.bitpay.com/bitpay-growth-2017/
[1] https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-...
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin/#charts
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/08/accidental-bug-may-have-froz...
How about comparing Bitcoin's percentage of total market capitalization [0] which crashed from ~80% down to ~40% when the blocks became full? The last month has regained that quite a bit but you could speculate it's because the promise of long overdue on chain capacity increase.
> I know you want to take the quick approach and just LOWER FEES NOW
It's been years since the limit should have been increased. Yet here we are with no on chain scaling for Bitcoin even remotely close to reality.
> that a cowboy attitude with blockchains makes it trivial to lose a lot of money
You're really comparing apples and oranges if you compare raising the block size with Ethereum's poorly designed smart contracts.
This has been a problem for years. For example Gavin thought 16MB would be perfectly safe. There's research being done now examining 1GB blocks and how that would affect propagation time. A lousy 2MB is honestly laughable.
Doing nothing isn't the pragmatic or sane approach, it's the insane one.