I don't believe the tragedy of the commons argument is a valid one because Bitcoin never existed in "the commons" as something like a lake in the first place due to one obvious reason, it's a for-profit system managed by central bankers. For Bitcoin to not have central bankers, it would require no maximum block size and no min transaction fee. The problem here is, one of those variables is required to be constrained to prevent spam attacks, so you'll always have central bankers in Bitcoin.
The current devs seem obsessed with utilizing block size as the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin solely to try and give the appearance of Bitcoin having no central bankers, when block size is only arbitrary throughput constraint. Minimum transaction fee is the real spam prevention tool for the job. They just haven't utilized it because they want to pretend there's no central bankers in the system when it's obviously required.
From a miner's perspective, it's in their best interest to vote for the highest minimum transaction fee that the network will bear. From a developer's engineering viewpoint, it's in their interest to set it to a level to prevent spam or attacks from constantly filling up blocks to create a permanent backlog. They both have authority to do so, and both of these interests clearly point to a minimum transaction fee higher than zero, so a Bitcoin dev that isn't advocating a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval isn't fulfilling his role well IMO.
If you take these previous points as fact, there will obviously not be any marginal cost doomsday event by raising block size because the system already required central bankers to work in the first place. Whether you agree or disagree about millions of other Larimer issues, he got it right when saying Bitcoin is a decentralized business or corporation, not a public good. My semantics might also be wrong and you might be able to classify them as "decentralized bankers". It's kind of unknown territory. Regardless, there is governance and profit structure built in where it's not an unmanaged dumping ground.
The current devs seem obsessed with utilizing block size as the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin solely to try and give the appearance of Bitcoin having no central bankers, when block size is only arbitrary throughput constraint. Minimum transaction fee is the real spam prevention tool for the job. They just haven't utilized it because they want to pretend there's no central bankers in the system when it's obviously required.
From a miner's perspective, it's in their best interest to vote for the highest minimum transaction fee that the network will bear. From a developer's engineering viewpoint, it's in their interest to set it to a level to prevent spam or attacks from constantly filling up blocks to create a permanent backlog. They both have authority to do so, and both of these interests clearly point to a minimum transaction fee higher than zero, so a Bitcoin dev that isn't advocating a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval isn't fulfilling his role well IMO.
If you take these previous points as fact, there will obviously not be any marginal cost doomsday event by raising block size because the system already required central bankers to work in the first place. Whether you agree or disagree about millions of other Larimer issues, he got it right when saying Bitcoin is a decentralized business or corporation, not a public good. My semantics might also be wrong and you might be able to classify them as "decentralized bankers". It's kind of unknown territory. Regardless, there is governance and profit structure built in where it's not an unmanaged dumping ground.