Reminding everyone here, who claims that every user needs to be able to run a full node. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:
"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while its still small, its nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that wont matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."
As I have already responded to sgbett in a similar way, I will say it again that Satoshi didn't put a timeline on that particular configuration. We can likely start aiming in that direction once democratically elected governments are no longer in debt to "the big block institutions" and the global internet infrastructure doesn't run the risk of being censored with regards to Bitcoin's increased traffic.
I agree with you that the timing of this transition is important, and I know that we do agree at least in our long term vision of Bitcoin. I do not think that time should be when democratically elected governments are no longer in debt to "the big block institutions". I think in order to get to that point in the first place we need to increase the blocksize somewhat at least, just so that blocks do not become consistently full which would lead to higher fees and rendering transactions unreliable, this would not be good for adoption. So it is definitely somewhat of a chicken before the egg problem so to speak but I suspect that a middle ground in terms of a blocksize increase will be the best solution in the near term.
I also do not think there is necessarily a conflict of interest with the "big block institutions". Which would explain why I favor the concept of allowing the free market to "rule" Bitcoin.