Shh, economics. This is why people in developing (or not developing) regions will continue to use mobile phone minutes as a medium of exchange rather than adopting btc.
There are a number of effective "we're gonna change the world" platforms in the bitcoin world.
1) No centralized bank or government control of value/transactions/etc.
2) Anonymous wealth control
3) Microtransactions
4) Non-repudiable 'instant' transactions
These are not exclusive, nor a complete list. For example, I'm very much a fan of #3 and #4 because I have been hoping for years that we can create a sustainable system for implementing many of the commercial aspects, including transclusion, of the Xanadu goals.
All of us are ignorant or dismissive of some basic facts, whether technical, political, or economical. For example, people are very fascinated with identifying the high-net-worth btc holders. While the effort to track their accounts and transfers was originally non-trivial, people spent a lot of time developing tools and methods for correlating accumulation and distribution. It's a short hop from there to tying an account to human entities.
It's not that this was unforeseeable, but that the effort seemed too much to worry about. However, one should probably assume that any effort distributed across the Internet will attract the attention of those people who have the time and inclination to grind away at tasks considered to be pointless by the vast majority. For some, it's a way of counting coup, and you'll never escape that.
The 'opportunity' that the limitation on transaction size creates is a value-added service for micropayments. In effect, a merchant would keep a ledger of microtransactions that could be remitted at any time. You could do this today with Mt. Gox, for example.
The downside of this is much the same as with a conventional financial system. That is, people are morons and principles have a price. Many of the systems built to date have been compromised (Mt. Gox, Bitcoinica, etc.) or misappropriated completely (BTCST, Bitcoinica, etc.). It is unlikely (but possible) that an entity with technical and legal competence and a scrupled imperative will bridge the gap for microtransactions on a long-term basis.
If it were to happen, one would still have a centralized 'bank' that would have to follow practices that would compromise anonymity due to AML and KYC regulations because bitcoin services are not a competitive market at this time.