I would like to reiterate on the following two points that I consider important.

1) Bitcoin needs to demonstrate that consensus rules are fairly rigid and can hold on their own long enough despite internal pressures. If the rules are easy to change then instead of playing all the same game everyone will begin bending the playing field in their favor. The term "stagnaters" when applied to the rigid framework of long-term consensus is actually a positive thing for Bitcoin. Innovation and development needs to happen within that framework, but not to the framework itself. Only when the rules become significantly out of balance and lag far enough behind the technological advancements curve, the whole ecosystem would feel the need to adjust and re-balance.

2) If blockchain validation costs can only rise over the long term, at which point and who is going to stop this trend? Static limit on block size is the only measure that can prevent this trend from accelerating (as it has been over the last few years), but only if it becomes effective and stays active long enough to let the technology progress, while the network bandwidth target remains limited. If this long-term trend cannot be controlled and sustained, then one of the key components of the original core value proposition, namely open and accessible blockchain, will be lost. At that point the benefits of transacting on the blockchain will be nullified. Who and how is going to maintain its integrity? Who is going to let the transactions in and allow for inspections?

Trends in decentralized systems are important and need to be analyzed very carefully before any decision to change the consensus rules can be made. Bitcoin will have to adjust at certain rare and discreet moments only when absolutely necessary in order to Keep Up With The Times.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IWI3npXLX-c/maxresdefault.jpg