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.
Well I'm certainly not dismissing any of them as potential solutions. Unlike some, I'm actually capable of looking at a proposal and thinking "It's not quite there in its present form, but if we modify this and a few bits here and there, then it might work". Why can't you do that? Why do you have to attack, dismiss, ridicule and torpedo every single proposal that alters an arbitrary 1mb cap? I'm pretty sure in our little exchange here that ran on for several pages, there was a distinct theme of "you really need to compromise and work with the rest of the community to find something we can all agree on, rather than continuing to draw a line in the sand". But I can't help but notice the block extension proposal still retains a 1MB cap and an inevitable asset-class elitist chain that only benefits a small minority. I'm still not seeing a hint of compromise from you and I've still yet to hear your master plan of how you're going to prevent BIP100 when you've painted yourself into a corner and no one is any closer to agreeing with you.
You've already admitted that some miners will obviously want larger blocks, so BIP100 is going to be very tempting for them. Again, I don't think BIP100 is the ideal solution as I would much prefer an algorithmic change based on demand. But given the choice between an exclusive blockchain and an inclusive blockchain, I will always side with the inclusive one. If you continue to reject any increase in blocksize until blocks are constantly overflowing into the mempool, then I will accept BIP100, because it's still infinitely more preferable than your asset class, elitist, one-percenter safe haven belief.
The problem you have, is that for all your talk of aligned incentives and claiming you understand them, the incentives for an inclusive blockchain will always outweigh the incentives of an exclusive blockchain. The numbers are simply against you.