I'm still holding hope for a better proposal that isn't too complex.
A dynamic proposal that allows the "anti-spam" limit to increase and
decrease may allow us to continue to search for other solutions while we have the backstop in place so we don't hit a crisis may be a good idea.
This is where my conversation with Gavin fell apart. He was not able to acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit. His reasoning was that since the limit was only one-sided (blocks with size above it are prevented) that it couldn't be too high.
You, I and others, can see the fallacy of this in a moment, but he seems willing to ignore it. I have good confidence in his programming. I like the way he codes, it is tight and clean. He is a great software engineer, and he has tested the software so that it works with large blocks.
As a protocol engineer he may be able to improve. He has set himself up as the curator of ideas, and decides which have merit and which do not. He was wise enough to revise this aspect of his proposal for the protocol once already, so he can hear some criticisms and respond.
This is why I hold some hope for him yet and have not given up on him.