Blocks should be full, it's kinda the point.
Blocks should be smaller.
Two things can be true.
Discussion
I'm pretty sure Satoshi's Vision was to have big, empty blocks.
Decreasing the block size would reduce the miner revenue long term as you decrease the usage by increasing the fees short term as you outprice businesses currently relying on bitcoin and forcing them to alternatives and fall again to the same policy fee rate. If you want bigger miner revenue you need to increase the block size to give miners the ability to compete better with alternatives by offering more bytes/transactions they can sell. Humanity won't reverse engineer into paying more for shit over time, the price for shit falls over time.
Call me an old fashioned conservative who fears change, but I like the block sizes right where they ara.
Tiny full blocks, Bitcoin will keep chugging along
Do you know why 3 MB of the #Bitcoin block size is dedicated to witness data but only 1 MB is dedicated to transaction signatures?
It isn't. It is 1 virtual MB for either. Segwit just gets a 4x discount. Put another way, its 4MBs for either, but inputs and outputs (transactions minus their signatures) are 4 times more expensive.
1 byte written to segwit space is 1 virtual byte.
1 byte written to the input output space is 4 virtual bytes.
This decision is said to be made because post-segwit the witness data doesnt go into the UTXOset and can get pruned. so long-term it’s literally cheaper for node operators. On top of that, we want people to be able to do things like complex scripts for lightning, multisig, other contracting. So if those things are now cheaper for nodes, reflect that in the fees.
Here's a resource: https://learnmeabitcoin.com/technical/transaction-weight
300kb and we have magic radio money