That's taken right from the FAQ of the project itself. This is just 1 example of potential services that won't be able to get developed completely (if at all).
They just haven't designed it right (so the Bitcoin limits are not really an issue).
Although let's not go off-topic my AT project will be launching "crowdfund" very soon and that could actually work on Bitcoin if Bitcoin were to adopt AT (with no limits for the number of pledges).
Turing-completeness is a non-starter.
The Bitcoin scripts were deliberately designed to not be Turing complete.
I have to admit, the
28 minute (thorough) block propagation time (for 20MB block) mentioned earlier does seem realistic to me. That works out to about 14 hops with each node spending
2 minutes on block verification. Edit: Forgot to add: Turing completeness, even with cycle limits, will obviously increase block verification time.
This lends credence to LaudaM's contention that the blocks will not fill up immediately. Though, I have seen it
argued that the large miners will have an incentive to push smaller miners out with large blocks (filled with garbage if need be).
Let me go with his assumptions implying a rational minimum fee of 0.0008 BTC for a 250 Byte transaction.
That would imply a total fee of 3.2 for 1 MB blocks. We have not even seen that magnitude yet (exceptions were only fucked up transactions).
Means we are not even close to block size limit sqeezing out meaningful fees, so why increase it?
Because a change like this has to be planned months in advance. During the next bubble it will be too late to meaningfully accommodate the increased transaction volume. I suppose that may be the point: to temper speculation with high fees. The difficulty is that the institutions pushing the next bubble have the
ability to print their own money.