LN is years from being actually usable by the masses. This is from their developers themselves.
> Maybe it's more proof that no one cares?
That's a pretty idiotic thing to say. The technology isn't ready yet despite the developers being aware of the problem for, as you say, years.
But what about the new problems it would introduce? I run a full node and even now it eats a significant portion of my bandwidth. With even larger blocks I would probably drop off the network altogether. And I'm sure I'm not the only one out there in this situation. Therefore, I don't think Core developers are exaggerating in their concerns about the centralization pressure caused by overly large blocks.
Moreover, wouldn't increasing the block size simply kick the can down the road? One advantage of the current fee pressure is that it strongly encourages the development of 2nd layer solutions. There are right now at least three independent teams working on Lightning Network implementations and they seem to be making quick progress...
Not everyone need to run a full node.
> Moreover, wouldn't increasing the block size simply kick the can down the road?
If you see it only as a temporary measure then sure. But it would for the time being solve Bitcoin's very urgent current problems.
Also any 2nd layer solutions require a blocksize increase, so the argument is kinda backwards.
> One advantage of the current fee pressure is that it strongly encourages the development of 2nd layer solutions.
Which is basically Core/Blocktream's plan. 2nd layer solutions is their whole business model...
But why opt out of something that we know works for a solution which isn't ready and may not even work?
Scaling should be done both on-chain and off-chain. Favoring one to the exclusion of the other is just wrong.