The block size debate is really a debate over the origins of value

One debate that has haunted Bitcoin from its beginning is whether individual bitcoins have "intrinsic value", and whether or not they need to.It's clear to me that bitcoins DO have intrinsic value for the following reasons:1) Bitcoin is a network with unique and never-before-seen capabilities.2) As Metcalfe's Law and the n (log)n valuation metric indicate, all networks have "use value" that varies with the number of users/nodes, and that use value can be calculated and quantified rather easily.3) Individual bitcoins are really "just" a transferable license to access and use the Bitcoin network, granted in limited quantities by a Decentralized Application (DApp). Network use/access is impossible without some fraction of a bitcoin.4) Thus, if using the network is for any reason useful, then bitcoins have inherent use value. The more useful the network, the higher the value of bitcoins.Those who believe as I do therefore understand that the value of individual bitcoins comes from the usefulness of the network itself. The larger, more useful, and more used the network is for any number of purposes, the more valuable is the right to access and use it (as Metcalfe's Law and its derivatives would indicate). In short, Bitcoin (the network) must be useful before bitcoins (the unit of account on the network) have any value.Those who believe as I do ultimately think that Bitcoin and bitcoin owners/miners are best served by EXPANDING ACCESS to the network as quickly as possible by making it as useful for as many things as possible as cheaply as possible. During these early stages of network growth, miners earn their keep from the "miner's reward" given every ten minutes rather than from "transaction fees" that would inhibit network use.But others believe the exact opposite. They view Bitcoin as a currency rather than a network, and they believe that there is no such thing as, and no need for, "inherent" value in a currency. Currencies have value just...because they do--because humans esteem them for inscrutable or perhaps even irrational purposes.Those in this camp believe that the Bitcoin network, being nothing more than a means of transferring valued bitcoins between parties, is valuable only because individual bitcoins are valuable.Failing to recognize that the network itself is valuable only to the extent it is well-used by great numbers of people (as indicated by Metcalfe's Law and its derivatives), and believing that bitcoins can grow in value as currency or a store of value (just because they are esteemed for inscrutable reasons) even if the network is not highly used, this camp seeks to charge a fee for miner services--to charge users a "toll" when they move bitcoins from one place/address on the network to another--even if doing so reduces network usage considerably. In other words, they are against appreciably increasing the transaction block size on the Bitcoin network because they believe that bitcoin can survive and prosper as a special purpose settlement network for only or primarily high value monetary transactions, while other networks can handle everything else (day-to-day transactions, non-monetary use cases, etc.).Respectfully, I think the assumptions of those opposing the cap are just wrong. First, individual bitcoins are valuable only because and to the extent the network itself is valuable. The more we make it usable for as many purposes as possible, the more valuable it becomes for all. Second, the power of network effects strongly suggest that consciously limiting the usefulness of the bitcoin network--that is, intentionally limiting it to a special purpose settlement network for only high value transactions--is likely to backfire. The "other" network (e.g., Ethereum?) that does things the Bitcoin network declines to do (e.g., small value transactions, non-monetary use cases, etc.), can certainly ALSO do those things that Bitcoin can do. With its value growing with its accelerating usefulness, and with its usefulness over time easily exceeding that of the Bitcoin network (due to additional use cases and lower costs), people will have no reason at all to cling to their bitcoins for limited use in high value transactions. If they use Ethereum or some other altcoin for multiple daily activities, we can't expect them to suddenly switch to Bitcoin every time a transaction exceeds "x" dollars. Network effects make such a scenario damn near impossible.CONCLUSION: Do everything possible to enhance the value and usability of the Bitcoin network now, including keeping transactions costs to an absolute minimum for as long as humanly possible. All tech startups realize that attempting to "monetize" the network too early is a grave, grave mistake. It's way, way too early for Bitcoin's miners to seek to monetize their services. via /r/Bitcoin http://bit.ly/1DlptLa