If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number, then clients will start rejecting any blocks with the old block version number, and the fork will be enforced from that point onward whether the blocks formed are >1Mbyte or not.
This is interesting. Is this really true? If we fork we will need to have mandatory >1MB blocks? Everything else will be orphaned?
The GSM network didn't need to "evolve" for iPhones to be able to function properly, in the very same way the core backbone that is Bitcoin doesn't need to be "fixed" with hardcoded exponential growth to allow innovation.
Again with pointless arguments instead of something constructive.
The GSM network evolved to support the gazzilions of iPhones that are using it. The GSM network isn't a limited network where you have to bid your place in order to use it. Was this your best argument?
You cannot be intellectually honest and claim that it is easier to revert to a previous version of something if you realize you fucked up than to fix problems when you actually have had an opportunity to actually witness and analyze them.
I didn't said that it's easier, but you know the truth that Bitcoin has some failover mechanism in place in case something goes wrong. Be is a vulnerability of any kind or a hard fork the failover systems are there.
Also hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon until the point that there is an actual problem. It's not something that can go wrong overnight. So yes I think that you actually aren't honest at all if you
deliberately choose to ignore Bitcoin the failover systems.