He put the limit in the source code.
It's up to you to find a quote of him suggesting it'd have to be removed.
This.
Furthermore, I think this is the most interesting part of Oleg's post:
If the miners hit the block limit, it would only mean one thing: there is a desire to process more transactions, but historical untested agreement does not allow it. Then miners and other full nodes will either raise the limit (the smaller the increment, the bigger support it will have), or transaction fees will go up as people compete for the space in blocks. As transaction fees go up, not only miners, but also regular users and service companies using the full blockchain would desire increment of the limit. So it will be even easier to achieve a consensus about raising the limit.
My prediction is that the block size limit will probably never be abolished, but will be constantly pushed up by a factor of two as amount of transactions approaches the limit.
In other words,
there's no need to fix what is not broken. When and if the block size limit is hit and transactions start competing for block space, resulting in transaction fees going up, we can discuss about doubling the block size limit just because, probably, the market will ask for it. The key word here is *probably*: you need to hit such limit to see if the market prefers bigger blocks or higher fees. On that matter I agree with Oleg and I think the market will push for biggers blocks and more transactions, but anyhow it is something that has to be seen when such limit is hit.
What is completely ridiculous is to arbitrarily decide to increase the block size limit by a factor of 20 (!!!!!) just because "production quotas do not work", as Gavin suggests
in his last blog post. I'd really like to hear his position about the main "production quota" in bitcoin: the hard limit in the money supply (max. 21M Bitcoin). Maybe his next proposal is to increase it to 210 million bitcoin because, you know, "production quotas do not work".