Lightning network and sidechains are not magical things, they're orthorgonal and not alternatives to relay improvements. But since you bring them up: They're both at a _futher_ level of development than IBLT at the moment; though given the orthogonality it's irrelevant except to note how misdirected your argument is...
I appreciate the further detail that you describe regarding the relay situation. So it seems that you are not optimistic that block propagation efficiency can have a major benefit for all full-nodes in the near future. Yet block propagation overhead is probably the single biggest argument for retaining the 1MB as long as possible. To cap volume growth to a certain extent.
I know that Lightning network and sidechains are orthogonal and not alternatives to relay improvements. However, I did not bring them up as a solution to dealing with the 1MB. Mentioning LN just now was prompted by Icebreaker's opinion that the prospect of LN is part of the reason why the 1MB should be left in place for some more years.
For the record. I like LN, I like its potential and I hope it succeeds.
what's your position on block size limit, never change it or change (in the way you like the most) in the future?
I agree with Satoshi,
change it "eventually" sometime in the next ~5 years (after optimization by sidechains/LN and fee markets mature).
"Eventually" will be when we see actual congestion (competitive fees no longer prioritizing tx) or the network otherwise being harmed by the Holy 1MB crapflood regulator.
Accommodating more 'cosmic background spam' with a permanent home in the Mother Chain is the worst reason ever for increasing blocksize.
BTW. Well done implementing BIP 66 the way you did.