And what happens after all the "spam" transactions are delayed and adoption has grown to a point where there still isn't enough room in a 1MB block for more "normal priority" fee paying transactions? That's right, the normal priority transactions will start to be delayed as well. What do you propose then? Or do you honestly believe roughly 10 minutes worth of transactions from all over the globe will continue to fit neatly into something smaller than a floppy disk for the rest of forever?
People will probably send smarter transactions if the fee gets too high. E.g. joining more transactions in sendmany, using internal transactions at exchanges where both have a wallet, etc. Bitcoin will not go under, and Bitcoin transaction fees have lots of room for expansion before we reach credit card or bank transfer level. Eventually we will have to use sidechains, Lightning or similar for smaller transactions where the fee will be too high for economic use of an in-chain transaction. And we will get faster transactions as well. But there is lots of room for growth before we need that, as this malicious spam campaign has proved.
You think the average person will put up with all that needless extra crap? I highly doubt it. People like simple and they like fair. The only reason to limit the network to 1MB is to pander to elitist ideals. People sending large amounts get security, everyone else gets risk and is forced off-chain to rely on a third party. The wealthy minority get all the benefit and everyone else gets a second tier service. People getting involved in crypto aren't doing so just to rely on a different third party to handle their transactions for them. The whole idea is that the transaction is recorded on a blockchain
without placing trust in someone else. If Bitcoin can't accommodate those transactions, the majority will simply use a different cryptocurrency. Users won't support a network that doesn't support them.
If Bitcoin becomes nothing more than a tool for the wealthy, I don't see how they're going to keep miners on board. Billions of people sending several transactions a day on a network that does scale will easily generate more in fees than a few one-percenter-wanabees sending the occasional large payment. As Bitcoin's block reward diminishes over time, those fees will need to increase if you don't want to start haemorrhaging hash rate. The question is, do you make individual users pay a higher amount? Or do you allow the number of transactions to increase and collect a greater quantity of fees.
If, hypothetically, there was no block reward right now, based on the transaction volume we are getting now, how much fee would need to be paid on each transaction to give at least the current average level of fees plus the 25 BTC reward? Last time I bothered to do the math, we were averaging about 750 transactions per block. By my figures, each transaction would have to have a fee of about .034 BTC just to cover the 25 BTC reward, plus a bit extra for the current fees that are already being paid (so there's no loss of mining revenue). How many people are going to pay about $8 or $9 USD in fees for every single transaction? Most would switch to an altcoin in a heartbeat if Bitcoin became that expensive. If people aren't willing to pay that much, there will be even fewer transactions and that cost will then rise even further. But increase the number of transactions in the block, rather than limiting it, then you can spread that cost over a greater number of users, making it more affordable. Obviously we can squeeze in a few more than the 750 we're averaging at the moment, but we genuinely do need more users than the system will currently support to make this thing sustainable in future. Unless you foresee Bitcoin becoming a niche, elitist, isolated haven for wealthy one-percenters, there is simply no other option than to accommodate more users.