I think you have the reasoning backwards. The argument the small-blockers are making isn't that we want to keep block size small to attempt to increase fees. In

I think you have the reasoning backwards. The argument the small-blockers are making isn't that we want to keep block size small to attempt to increase fees. Instead they're saying we want to keep block size small to avoid centralization pressures, and if this means higher fees then so be it. > Ultimately miners decide which transactions to include in a block or reject so if miners feel they need to get a certain fee per transaction that is their prerogative regardless of the block size. Again the issue is a bit more complex. A miner can of course enforce any fee policy they want, but that policy will only have a significant effect if it is enforced by a large pool. And suppose a large pool decided that they will accept all transactions, regardless of fees, up to the max block size, then all other miners have to deal with the consequences of this decision, because they have to validate the blocks produced by the large pool. This is what Rusty is calling large miners attacking smaller miners.