Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?
No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.
The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.
I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.
I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.
When this Bitcoin shit was pitched to me almost five years ago I was led to believe that it was about empowering people, about change, about moving away from the tight controls of big business and Wall Street, about true financial freedom and liberty. I bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The more I watch issues like this unfold the more I realize what a complete crock of shit that was. What you have is a small group of developers that are more interested in the concerns of big business than making Bitcoin usable for the little guy. Bitcoin has become the most centralized service I can imagine. Development can be controlled by one guy. Mining is concentrating more and more every day into the hands of people the community doesn't know or communicate with. Exchanges are complying with more regulations and gathering more data on Bitcoin users than banks do for fiat. The private exchange of coins between individuals (like on LBC) is stagnant because of the fear of arrest.
This issue isn't even about moving the blocksize. It's about power and control. Everyone knows that moving the blocksize won't be necessary for a long time. With sidechains it may not be necessary at all or it may be able to happen very gradually over a period of 40 years. I hope no one is living so deep in the emerald forest with the elves that you've deluded yourselves into believing that Bitcoin will come close to the volume of EFT/ACH within the next 30-40 years. The problems being solved currently by development are not the most critical immediate issues. They're the ones that require the least effort to repair and still there's no consensus. When are we going to work on pruning the blockchain?