yes, and out of fucking no where it claims that mining profit "needs to go up by at least 10x-100x (if not much much more)." using absolutely flawed nonsense.

satoshi already covered all this shit in his design anyway. that's why there is a block subsidy, to cover the gap in initial adoption where fees would be small due to small numbers of transactions in blocks. he even anticipated the general concept of layer 2 systems like lightning taking the load off the chain and causing such small blocks. it's mostly shitcoiners who don't get it that bitcoin having small blocks is not a problem. when you consider that the reward for a block solution right now amounts to close to 1/3 of a million dollars, the incentive to mine is plenty sufficient for people to maintain a large amount of hardware to do it. one thing i can say is that this margin is thin. the difference between a successful solo miner on the large scale, and an unsuccessful one, that bleeds money, is not a wide one. the market is very competitive. advantages like privileged access to new hardware with better performance or even geographical location as relates to the fulfillment of such hardware purchases or network latency compared to competitors are quite important and in no way reduce the security of the chain. they simply make it "hard" to be a successful bitcoin miner, since so many factors are at play. the price level of bitcoin has consistently maintained a level that has been sufficient for an ongoing increase in hash power, and thus a constant escalation of the lower bound of what would be required to successfully mount a malicious attack on the chain. i personally think that is because its value proposition, as hard money, is incontrovertible, and as a result, demand for it is maintained consistently at a level that keeps the miners in a tight but sufficient position for actually making income from it and staying in the black. if they are careful, and well informed.