[CryptoPunk]

>>FWIW bigger blocks actually mean much much smaller transaction fees, both in theory and practice.

Ethereum has larger transaction fees than Bitcoin right now, on a larger volume of transactions, so in practice, that is not true.

The addressable market will necessarily shrink with too small blocks.

Now of course when Bitcoin Cash launches, with most of the world unaware of it, it's not going to get as much as adoption, and by extension transaction fees, as Bitcoin, irrespective of its block size limit, so your comparison is inappropriate.

[nullc]

Ethereum has a what is effectively a block size limit, which is limiting usage to pretty similarly to Bitcoin's and it is operating hard against it. ('volume' of transactions is not particularly comparable because the average bitcoin transaction now makes multiple payments in a single txn).

Back in the past the issuer of Ethereum stated publicly that online money should not cost more than 5cts/txn... and yet here we are with $50 transactions there.

BCash has not only fewer transaction in spite of tens of millions spent promoting it, but it has vastly lower fees per transaction. If its blocks were half full at 10x the current feerate (and many times larger than bitcoin blocks), its fee income would still be a tiny fraction of Bitcoin's-- and nowhere near enough to support even the extremely low level of security it currently has.