Big blockers are unimaginative, unintelligent morons.

We have the solution for high volume payments already, it just is a little immature technology still since it requires careful maintenance and strong redundancy on the nodes running it, if you want to be able to reliably receive payments (thus requiring LSPs and third parties to intermediate). It currently has a liveness requirement that is onerous.

All that is required to make it a complete solution is a way to distribute that third party trust requirement for asynchronous payments and we are golden.

If the thought behind big blocks has to do with "smart contracts", which basically means securitisation, then GFY, just because fiat mixes cash with securitisation doesn't mean it's good for anyone, and the market segment that it would attract is not going to improve broad adoption.

"Worse is better", has been a golden rule of computer technology since the days of Unix's inception (and the birth of the C language). What it really means is found in one of the "laws of unix" - a piece of software should do one thing, and do it well. Adding complex programming to a money ledger is an example of mixing concerns and leads to bloat and bugs. Bitcoin's purity is key to its strength.