I'm probably not the right person to ask. Other people on that forum should know.
Most of my interest is with the experimental stuff discussed by testing1567 as well as some interesting new attack vectors opened up politcially by empowering the nodes with developmental decisions. There are some topics that need further analysis.
Note that nodes already are empowered with decisions on the consensus parameters, it's just that there is a lot of friction in them doing so because of the inconvenience barrier and the strong Schelling point that artificially sets up. (See my post above in reply to Smooth. I would say the current approach makes it far more political, and BU attempts to eliminate such aspects.)
This does get me interested in a potential oracle or DAO potentially having the role to determine maxBlockSize by analyzing technical merits/limitations at a higher weight than user demand which could be used to influence a more dynamic block adjustment.
Interesting idea. Bitcoin has a lot up its sleeve for the future, and DAO+oracles could do amazing things to market efficiency. I think a prediction market would be ideal. Once a decentralized prediction market is up and running and gets liquidity, this will probably be the way the blocksize cap is decided in the future.
This whole debate has made be extremely optimistic about Bitcoin's future, as I see the ferocity with which people will defend and debate until the right answer has been reached even on a fairly esoteric point to most lay people. This is the power of an economic system powered people with skin in the game. How much have all of us learned, no matter what side of the debate you are on, in this past year? Bitcoin drives us to be better, smarter, wiser, less biased, less emotional, less narrowly focused on our own domains of expertise.
1) Very few of the core developers are "small block adherents", besides 1-2 developers , all suggest raising maxBlockSize.
Yeah. By "small" I just mean like single-digit MB sizes for the next few years. I don't mean just permanent 1MB supporters.
2) testing1567 indicated " My other issue with BU is it lacks a way to move the blocksize down, only up." is this true for nodes with BU(I am aware that miners can set the limit to anything.)
No, any limit can be set. I assume testing1567 was referring to something about how someone said the acceptance depth thing was supposed to work.