People were always talking about this, dont know why it was never proposed earlier as a BIP. But its very difficult now for any BIP proposal to get accepted regardless of if majority want it because miners will never vote for anything other than BIP 100.
Unless you take a different approach and fork based on 90% or so of node majority rather than using hash majority, but you wouldn't want to do that without first confirming there was already a very strong consensus within the economy for the BIP.
Unless you take a different approach and fork based on 90% or so of node majority rather than using hash majority, but you wouldn't want to do that without first confirming there was already a very strong consensus within the economy for the BIP.
I certainly hope it's not too late, but fear you might be right. I feel out of all the proposals, BIP100 is by far my least preferable, unless it's altered to add an algorithmic element. Give me a simple piece of code over a central entity dictating monetary policy any day. There's still a chance, but we need to get some momentum built up behind this proposal if there's any possibility of BIP106 being chosen. Hopefully it'll be discussed at the scaling conference.
Have you considered the block extension proposal?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39kqzs/how_about_a_softfork_optin_blocksize_increase/?sort=confidence
It might not be the most simple or easy to implement but certain from my point of view the one that satisfies most both sides, in effect creating a solution that respects consensus that there is no consensus.
