As for waste, spam, elitism etc, just read the quotes of satoshi in my post above. Was he an elitist or a realist - in terms of how the network operates?
You tried to derail the block size topic with an off-topic post bringing up random Satoshi quotes about micropayments
It's not the micropayment word that I put the quotes up. And they are not random.
Poster above wrote:
"I do not understand how "smallblockers" or elitist..."
"There are no all knowing wise guys, who tell the peasants what is good for them (and that his tx is "spam". Such arrogant elitism!)..."
Satoshi wrote:
"The
dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that."
"If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of
wasted transactions back and forth"
...people have problem when I say "dust", "spam", "waste" and they are like "who are you to determine what is spam, dust and waste". Some others say "arrogance, elitism" etc. Yet satoshi was using similar words in dealing with the real life problem of network abuse. Why would he intentionally prevent small transactions if he thought they weren't a problem - at least for now?
As for your argument regarding fees and block size, I've said multiple times that I wouldn't object much larger blocks if there were much higher fees involved. In absence of serious antispam fees, the block size is the last line of defense. Additionally, oversupply of space will not give much motivation for those transacting to pay fees. So block size and fees paid by a spammer are related (again, in absence of serious anti-spam fees).
On the other hand, this could be "solved" if miners went on a "strike" and didn't process transactions if they were paid some serious tx fees - which would lead to a user revolt or some kind of "intervention" by devs who would then try to "force" the mining of transactions. At least for the next 4 or 8 years when block subsidy will probably be much bigger than the fee market.