Currently you can not reach that goal without a hard fork, and a hard fork as you have seen in recent event, is a very dangerous thing if not planned and handled very well
We already have reached that goal. No fork required, because that was part of the original design.
Where is this conclusion come from?
From the part that you edited out...
With Bitcoin there is no reason we can't have both fast and easy transactions and a store of value at the same time.
Maybe that is possible, but don't be too greedy and reqire too much at a time
Currently you can not reach that goal without a hard fork, and a hard fork as you have seen in recent event, is a very dangerous thing if not planned and handled very well
Store of value was part of the original design.
If I remember correct, Gavin said that there is a consensus to raise the block size limit, I tends to agree that it is technically necessary
Before, I was very afraid of a hard fork, I thought it will be the end of bitcoin. But as the latest event showed, the community leaders have the ability to maneuver in a storm, so a planned hard fork might not be that dangerous
Not relevant. We are talking about Bitcoin as a transaction system and a store of value. The blocksize limit is a different issue.