raise the block size too slowly and you discourage transactions and increase their price. The danger is Bitcoin becomes irrelevant for anything besides huge transactions, and is used only by big corporations and is too expensive for individuals. Hurray, we just reinvented the SWIFT or ACH systems.
SWIFT doesn't work like this at all though: it's incredibly clunky, and only works with government-issued currencies.
If anything, it'd be like reinventing the gold standard, but a digital, cryptographically verifiable, lightning fast and relatively cheap to use version. (In many implementations of the gold standard, gold wasn't actually used in day-to-day trade.)
Furthermore, SWIFT is not decentralized, and certain transfers (to specific countries for instance) can technically be censored. Nor is it anonymous or even pseudonymous.
See:
http://www.swift.com/news/press_releases/SWIFT_disconnect_Iranian_banks
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-29/u-k-wants-eu-to-block-russia-from-swift-banking-network.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-exclusive-nsa-spies-on-international-bank-transactions-a-922276.html
Quote
Judging by what I know about economics and economists, I suspect if we ask eleven of them we'll get seven different opinions for the best thing to do. Five of which will miss the point of Bitcoin entirely.
LOL
(Perhaps mathematicians, though?)