I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?
I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.
really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)
Blocksize limit = supply.
Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.
(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)
In classical economics, one defines a "supply curve" where the unit cost of the commodity (block space) is a monotonically increasing function of the quantity produced. If demand grows, producers increase production to meet it (at an increased price). This is how the free market works.
Your comment that "blocksize limit = supply" is false except in the case where the supply is constrained by the protocol rather than by economics (this continues the debate we had earlier). As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically. The limit thus serves as only an anti-spam measure--that is, it continues to serve the original purpose it was designed for.