BIP100 seems awesome!
[ ... ]A key goal, therefore, is to transition the speed limit from software control to market control.
Remove the policy wedge. Let the free market decide the long term shape of bitcoin’s
transaction fee market, level of security and level of decentralization.
Miner voting was chosen for BIP 100 as a “lesser of the evils” Stakeholder voting is appealing,
Jeff seems to be making the same mistake that the Blockstream devs did: assume that the block size limit is meant to limit
traffic. (That would make the speed limit analogy pertinent.)
But that is not the purpose of the block size limit, and it never was. The original 32 MB size limit existed for programming convenience reasons (to make blocks fit into a single message), and ws lowered to 1 MB to prevent a specific hypothetical DoS attack (a rogue miner solving a block so big that it would choke some players). The block size limit was, and should always be, many times higher than the expecte average normal traffic, so that it is never a cap to it.
at first there was no blocksize limit, but there was a 32MB max p2p msg, there still is this limit, with the addition of 1MB blocklimit
why blocklimit was originally designed to do is beside the point
today poeple agree the lower the blocklimit to easier it is for miners to participate in mining
we all want as many participants , while making sure confirmation times aren't slowed by blocklimit. BIP100 will simply allow miners to slowly adjust blocklimt to achieve just that.