The spam attack is worrying for me because BIP101 can do nothing about it as the Jan date is hard coded.

At least with BIP100 something could potentially happen sooner (though we are still going to have the whole issue about getting a majority to run it). I'd be happy to pin my colors to a BIP100 based solution if it meant that block size increases could happen sooner rather than later - even though I think that block size as a function of miner voting is totally unnecessary and overly complex.

I'm interested in how the anti-XT crowd feel about a BIP100 implementation that could very well facilitate 8MB blocks even sooner?

Its pure speculation I know - I'm used to the other board in this respect - but I suspect a lot of people went XT on the 8MB blocks issue (its the only reason I switched). If in fact XT is being 'rekt' are people overlooking the fact that there is still large support for 8MB blocks amongst those 'rekkers'.

With regards short term block size increase, it may be that the only difference between BIP100 and BIP101 is that the latter requires 75% on XT (or xt-compatible) whereas the former requires 80% of miner votes to be 8MB.

I wonder if the anti-XT crowd may end up being the ones that get the block size increase implemented even sooner! That would be ironic