As there are already several implementations the menace threat seems overblown. Even if you were to assume that Core was the "one true bitcoin", which version of it is gospel? If miners refuse to upgrade to 0.12 is this an attack? A menace?
Gospel? Satoshi just meant that it could cause compatibility issues that lead to networks forking off from one another. Core is one implementation. Having multiple implementations has nothing to do with updating to the most recent release of a client you already run. It seems like people like to cite Satoshi only when it suits them, and to otherwise brush what he said under the rug. The obvious solution is to approach the questions without citing someone that can't defend against people misconstruing his words.
It is possible to release an implementation right now with the limit removed. This still isn't an attack. Bitcoin's built in consensus mechanism protects the network.
That only works if you retain the consensus mechanism. There can be no question that lowering the threshold for consensus changes to 75% redefines what the "consensus mechanism" is. It not only attempts to redefine the English language definition (general agreement) but it attempts to redefine it in opposition to every intentional fork in bitcoin's history.
Nick Szabo called it "a 51% attack being justified through argument." You can't redefine the very basis of bitcoin -- consensus to achieve trustlessness -- so you can change the rules for everyone else without their agreement, and then deny that it's an attack. It very clearly is, and I'm happy to fork off anyone that tries.
Redefining consensus as "majority rule" was never something I signed up for by running my nodes. I'll just fork you off my network if you attempt to break consensus. And that's the root of the problem of breaking consensus in a controversy -- nodes = the rules. Miners are perpetually forced to act on incomplete information as quickly as possible, and they can only follow users, lest they be mining on an empty network. They can point their hashpower where they want, but that doesn't mean I'm going to install a forked client, nor that the rest of the network will. When the dust settles, we might find that users exist on both chains, and once difficulty adjusts, mining may be profitable on both. In that context, redefining the "consensus mechanism" defeats the purpose of consensus, period. And miner "consensus" -- which
does not define the rules for network nodes -- does nothing to change that.
There is evidence right now that the 1MB limit causes problems. There is only speculation that removing it causes problems.
That's akin to saying that there is evidence that a limit on taxes has led to a budget deficit, so we should remove all limits on taxes. That sort of logic is completely useless and doesn't belong in any serious debate. There
can only be speculation on the consequences of increasing the block size limit. That is not evidence that we should do so. There is also only speculation that increasing the block size is safe (and to what extent). To use your logic, should we axe it from discussion then?
The reason we can't talk in terms of what is best for bitcoin is because people have different opinions. People prefer speculative drama to mundane truth. The reason we can't work towards Bitcoin's principles is that these are also subject to people's opinion. If you refuse to accept that "What Satoshi said" has any importance all we have is the court of public opinion. In which case your view is as equally valid as mine. How do we resolve that? What are bitcoins principles when it comes to disagreement about what bitcoin is?
In a term, consensus mechanism. Until consensus is reached on protocol changes, the status quo prevails. Many are upset that they can't get their way, and want to weasel their way into implementing changes with less and less agreement among the community that runs the software. I think that's atrocious. Again, any such attackers will just be forked off my network. You could argue that my nodes will exist only on a dead network -- I vehemently disagree and believe that game theory does little to support that in the context of an extremely contentious debate and a lowered majority threshold for miner agreement.
With regards to the "appeal to authority" defence. If something is a fact, and somebody happens to state that fact. Any argument that relies on the fact cannot be dismissed by saying "we should not rely on what somebody said". The argument is being made because of the fact, not because of what was said.
That's not an appeal to authority then. Saying "Satoshi said x, therefore y" is different than "Because of x, therefore y, which also agrees with Satoshi's findings." Often, though, people make arguments like the former.
Like you did here. That fallacious logic is why I responded to you in the first place.
The limit was a temporary anti DOS measure, it is now restricting growth of transactions. Those are facts.
Temporary, until today? Next year? 2020?
What I said (and what you've glossed over) was:
IMHO what is best for bitcoin is to allow it to grow unencumbered by artificial limits.
You've got the touch of a sophist, alright.
Is the 21 million coin cap artificial? It is intended to control inflation.
The 1MB cap was intended to mitigate DOS attacks and deter spam. If you want to change the rules, you should begin by making a case that those concerns have been addressed.
It makes me really sad. This are the sad days of Bitcoin, the moment that you realize the trolling and the small view and mentality of Core developers brings Bitcoin to the ground. Sadly this is what is happening and it will happen in the past months. 
