I don't trust Gavin/Hearn to implement anything, since the basis for scaling in BIP101 is Moore's Law (unproven, unscientific, failing) and nothing more than the baseless assumption that we can address issues of scaling on an exponentially increasing schedule. Literally, the only answer provided to questions of delayed block propagation times is that "technology gets better over time." Never mind the basic premise in large scale systems that conditions in small scale =/= conditions in large scale, and how this basic oversight could force us to fork the limit down after a serious security lapse. One cannot test a regime in a .4MB block environment and simply assume that it is stable in an 8GB block environment.

We are simply supposed to believe that "technology gets better over time, therefore exponentially increasing block size limit presents no threats to bitcoin."

Pfff.....

If you believe a block size limit increase is necessary, it doesn't logically follow that you should accept the first reckless proposal that comes along.