>are you assuming the relative scarcity of transaction space would push fees high enough to overcome that?
Yes.
The blocks always contain approximately 10 minutes' worth of transactions because the network periodically adjusts mining difficulty to approximate that target.
Right now, the issue is that there are times when 10 minutes' worth of bitcoin transactions are occupying more than 1MB of space in the completed blocks, which means a processing backlog is formed. Miners prioritize transactions by their attached transaction fee, since they get that fee if they find the block. Thus, users are effectively placing a bid for the network hash power to verify their transaction.
When a backlog forms, customers that want their transaction processed quickly have to outbid others to get a miner to start working on it. If there's not a backlog, their transaction will be included with only a token fee attached because something is better than nothing. Going from 1MB to 8MB means that bitcoin would need 8x more transaction volume per 10 minute block to get back into a transaction backlog, which is the only time that users will attach a meaningful transaction fee to their transactions.
So if the block size goes up from 1MB to 8MB today, there will still be a block every ten minutes, but since transaction volume will presumably remain nearly the same, space in each block won't be scarce and the bidding war won't take off. It'd be a long time before we got back into the same predicament, meaning miners would have to wait a lot longer to start collecting meaningful transaction fees. That's why some people with heavy investments in mining want to keep the block size artificially low: they're trying to instigate a bidding war for their hash power.
It should be noted that this eventuality was always part of bitcoin's design. Bitcoin is programmed to stop "minting" around 22 million coins. At that time, the network will not issue any reward to the miners that find a block (the reward will cut itself down until that number is reached, targeted for approximately 2022 iirc). The solution to this has always been "users will have to incentivize miners with transaction fees".
It's just that the assumption was always that we wouldn't have to deal with that until the network itself stopped attaching rewards to mining. In practice, however, we're in that situation now due to the artificial constraint on the size of a block (which, afaik, is mostly accidental and was never intended to be permanent). The debate is over whether bitcoin should remove the artificial block size constraint and keep its fees negligibly low or whether it should keep the constraint and "allow" miners to start charging more for processing transactions.
Yes.
The blocks always contain approximately 10 minutes' worth of transactions because the network periodically adjusts mining difficulty to approximate that target.
Right now, the issue is that there are times when 10 minutes' worth of bitcoin transactions are occupying more than 1MB of space in the completed blocks, which means a processing backlog is formed. Miners prioritize transactions by their attached transaction fee, since they get that fee if they find the block. Thus, users are effectively placing a bid for the network hash power to verify their transaction.
When a backlog forms, customers that want their transaction processed quickly have to outbid others to get a miner to start working on it. If there's not a backlog, their transaction will be included with only a token fee attached because something is better than nothing. Going from 1MB to 8MB means that bitcoin would need 8x more transaction volume per 10 minute block to get back into a transaction backlog, which is the only time that users will attach a meaningful transaction fee to their transactions.
So if the block size goes up from 1MB to 8MB today, there will still be a block every ten minutes, but since transaction volume will presumably remain nearly the same, space in each block won't be scarce and the bidding war won't take off. It'd be a long time before we got back into the same predicament, meaning miners would have to wait a lot longer to start collecting meaningful transaction fees. That's why some people with heavy investments in mining want to keep the block size artificially low: they're trying to instigate a bidding war for their hash power.
It should be noted that this eventuality was always part of bitcoin's design. Bitcoin is programmed to stop "minting" around 22 million coins. At that time, the network will not issue any reward to the miners that find a block (the reward will cut itself down until that number is reached, targeted for approximately 2022 iirc). The solution to this has always been "users will have to incentivize miners with transaction fees".
It's just that the assumption was always that we wouldn't have to deal with that until the network itself stopped attaching rewards to mining. In practice, however, we're in that situation now due to the artificial constraint on the size of a block (which, afaik, is mostly accidental and was never intended to be permanent). The debate is over whether bitcoin should remove the artificial block size constraint and keep its fees negligibly low or whether it should keep the constraint and "allow" miners to start charging more for processing transactions.