No free lunch. Few seem to want to listen to Gavin's warning about block size. So if blocks can only include some transactions then you are going to have to pay to be one of those included transactions.
Aye, it would appear Gavin's idea is a solid one I just fear the interwebz backbone won't be able to keep up to what is required.
Gavin's idea isn't solid at all. It's not even based on solid research. It certainly doesn't fix potential problems with network spam, because such attacks would still be affordable.
The only thing that will reduce transaction spam is a healthy fee market. Fees should increase exponentially for small transactions with big data sizes. For those fearing of not being able to afford a frappochino: Sidechains will be available for such use cases.
So far the catastrophic scenarios that Gavin and Mike propagated turned out not to be true: Blocks are full now, but Bitcoin continues to work just fine. You just have to pay a little bit higher fees. With optimization on the fee market (higher penalties for smaller/big datasize TX's), the effects would be even smaller.
At some point there will be a blocksize increase, but if the "stress testing" has done anything good, then it's proving that there is no reason to rush this and risk decentralization with an excessive and half-baked "solution".
