There can not be disagreement on the protocol enforced limit, which is what your right hand graph shows. If there was then miners that issued larger blocks will get forked off of every miner with a lower limit.
I think the current situation is also more representative of the right hand side graph, than the left. Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today.
EXACTLY!
What is needed instead is to get rid of the protocol limit in practice (maybe keep a high water anti-spam limit which is what the 1MB was/is), while letting the market show it's preferences.
NO! Christ, would you please read the line YOU wrote that I just quoted above?
Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today.
This is exactly what we have today! A market of miners showing their preference under an healthy anti-spam limit. The bigbloaters would want you to believe there is
urgency to
ACT NOW. They support their stance with nothing more than coloured charts, failed spam tests, balloons of "future adoption" and "MOAR USERS".
The fact is we are now hovering around an average of 400kb per blocks. There is no such thing as "mainstream consumer retail adoption" anywhere in sight.
You people, you VCs and "entrepreneurs" with your "inclusion" bullshit and startup mentality. It's about time you consider maybe that is not how you build an
economy.
The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.
Is this really the "ecosystem" you want to throw "new users" into anyway!? Still reeking with scammers, broken "wallet services" and generally insecure environment. I realize you have new venture fund to raise but MOAR USERS is not going to help you if you can't actually serve them right.
This situation probably leads to a loose and dynamic form of market consensus on sizes. Miners that decided to only accept blocks well below most other miners' preference risk being orphaned at a higher rate and so are forced to up the size they accept to better match other miners. At the same time miners that issue blocks larger than what most other miners are willing to build on also risk being orphaned at a higher rate. The result is miners are forced by market pressures to move towards a consensus.
I'm sorry but that's absolutely broken thinking. It company ignores the fact that miners can always put more hash working for bigger blocks so that they force their big blocks down the throat of the network until smaller miners can only choke on them and die.
That is the true free-market operating. Not some "handwaving" blocksize equilibrium nonsense.