We have no evidence to indicate that Moore's law is applicable on bitcoin's blockchain Why would anyone want to force the blockchain expanding at pre-set dates. The concept behind an increasing block size has no basis other than speculating that bitcoin's use will grow (and expecting the new users would want to use in-chain transactions. The vote mechanism of BIP100 is much more rational. It's good that Jeff wants to be open about development so possible weaknesses not thought out in the papers can be addressed while developing.
That is the main issue with 101
I think what Bobby Lee said sounds reasonable
Our perspective is that the Internet today, in China and also globally, is not yet ready for unrestrained, automatic increases of the block size. A global network of bitcoin miners and mining pools requires tremendous levels of network connectivity to relay large blocks around the world in a timely manner. If block sizes get too big, too fast, orphan rates will certainly increase, disadvantaging smaller miners and mining pools. Furthermore, the risks of larger forks would increase substantially, which will cause real devastation to bitcoin. ... For these technical reasons, we strongly believe that adopting BIP 100 is the more responsible choice.
Unbalance or not, we are finally heading toward consensus as BIP100 has 64% support and steadily increasing
not a single block has been mined under BIP101 in the past 24h
Consensus toward miners but not from payment processors and market markers that strongly support BIP101 for obvious reasons. Both should go in an agreement otherwise it's not a consensus, it's a miners take over.