I think what it comes down to is two separate visions for Bitcoin:
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
Vision 1: The block size limit should be used as a policy tool by a group of experts to balance fees with security/decentralization.
Vision 2: The evolution of the network should be determined by the code we freely choose to run, and Bitcoin should scale with demand through a market-based process.
This is complete bogus as usual Peter.
The evolution of the network is already determined by the code nodes choose to run.
If Core supported free choice by users, then we'd have an easy solution to the block size limit debate: they'd make it easy for node operators to express their support for "no change," BIP100, BIP101, etc, etc. That would solve the block size debate in a hurry.
However, the Blockstream crew is already on record saying that the users should *not* be the ones to choose. And this is the reason they are opposed to allowing the people an easy way to express their wishes.
Solve it how exactly? By a vote?
For example, Core could add code to support BIP101, BIP100, and any other solutions that had popular support. Miners could then very easily select--with a drop down menu in the GUI or with a run-time parameter--which of the proposals to flag support for in their blocks (perhaps even voting for several at the same time). Non-mining nodes could show support in other ways (although this would be less reliable). The first proposal to be activated (e.g., at the 75% threshold) would be the market-selected winner.
