initially? lower fees. eventually it will be offset by the induced demand and we'll be back to square one.

We won't be back at square one even if the fees end up the same, since the transaction thoroughput would be higher.

Bigger blocks means more transactions per block and at a constant rate of 6 blocks/hr that means the network can handle more TPS before fees rise. As long as the mempool remains relatively empty, fees will be low.

By that argument, we should have capped Internet bandwidth at 56kbps.

Imagine if they increased the block size and developed Lightning in parallel. On-chain fees would be low until Lightning becomes mainstream then Lightning fees would be even lower.

Tried that in 2017, but the stream got blocked.

Bitcoin Cash has handled more transactions than small-block core for two months now. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-bch.ht...

Read the first page of the Bitcoin whitepaper: https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf.

It's a protest against fees and intermediaries. Now we see BTC claim to be Bitcoin, but it is crippled by high fees and custodial intermediaries.

That's great to hear. I was following BCH back when their transactions were just a trickle. I was afraid the Craig Wright nonsense was going to completely end the chain. Refreshing to know that they are not just surviving, but thriving.

Intersting to see the downvotes, looks like the BTC vs BCH is quite polarizing even on HN

>Now we see BTC claim to be Bitcoin, but it is crippled by high fees and custodial intermediaries.

If only there was a low fee way of doing bitcoin transactions without custodial intermediaries...

https://lightning.network/