I think SW should be implemented as a hard fork. This gives people more freedom of choice, however I can not imagine many people opposing SW, it seems to be good and I can not see many downsides to this new breakthrough.
I think it is wise to design for success. Segregated witness is cool, but it isn’t a short-term (within the next six months to a year) solution to the problems we’re already seeing as we run into the one-megabyte block size limit.
This is also not a short term solution to the blocksize limit and for that matter also not a long term solution either. There is also disagreement in regards to different theories surrounding the fee market. Some people believe blocks should become consistently full, this seems to be the predominant position among the Core developers. There are a significant amount of people like myself however that fundamentally disagree with the economic theory underpinning this assumption.
Disagreements appear rooted more in differing opinions on economics, a specialized field entirely distinct from engineering, programming, and network design.
The block size limit has for the most part not ever been, and should not now be, used to determine the actual size of average blocks under normal network operating conditions. Real average block size ought to emerge from factors of supply and demand for what I will term “transaction-inclusion services.” Beginning to use the protocol block size limit to restrict the provision of transaction-inclusion services would be a radical change to Bitcoin. The burden of proof is therefore on persons advocating using the protocol limit in this novel way.
Transaction-fee levels are not in any general need of being artificially pushed upward. A 130-year transition phase was planned into Bitcoin during which the full transition from block reward revenue to transaction-fee revenue was to take place.
The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-control measure.
