pools that try to form around this objective will quickly disintegrate. A big miner needs to be monolithic to have any hope of creating supersized blocks and not disintegrate.
Is this considered a security improvement?
No, it just strengthens the point that the proposal does not create new reasons to centralize. It does nothing about old reasons though.
Meni Rosenfeld: What do you think about the
BIP 100 draft?
If I understand correctly, in this proposal the miners get the ultimate say about what the block limit will be. That is ill-advised, as their incentives are not aligned with those of the users and the nodes. A voting mechanism makes it very easy for miners to collude.
I agree that it will be good to set a precedent that the Bitcoin technology can be changed, and that therefore we should start with a small change. But is seems Jeff's proposal is anything but, rather it's a very controversial change with significant economic implications.
Take that part out, and I support this. I'd prefer, though, either going straight for 4MB, or an accelerated timetable for 2MB.