Why are you having such a hard time understanding that it IS ALREADY CONFIGURABLE!? BU has done nothing more then add a GUI to a system that is already designed to reach consensus based on the code individual users decide to run. It says this very clearly in the whitepaper, do none of you understand how how Satoshi envisioned this system to work? How can you even invest in Bitcoin when you don't understand these very basic facts, because otherwise this system would be extremely fragile and would make no investment sense at all.
Of course, everything is configurable and to a developer their is little difference between recompiling from source a few changes in the code and making the changes with a GUI. To a non-technical person, this makes a world of difference and has a profound political impact however.
Yeah. By "small" I just mean like single-digit MB sizes for the next few years. I don't mean just permanent 1MB supporters.
Interesting. Do you have a general sense of what block sizes are most BU supporters comfortable with? How about yourself?
Will BU be rolling in the long list of other scaling changes core is going to be rolling out, including SegWit/SepSig? (Seems to be some confusion on the issue here--
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/what-is-bus-stance-on-segwit.665/) , perhaps this is all premature as you still need to vote in officers and finish updated your github as I see multiple issues there with a quick glance(many old notes and links from pre-fork).
However, I do not agree that 1MB4EVA is even remotely part of these fundamental principles. Further, it seems you've lost that battle even amongst the majority of those that oppose a simple maxblocksize increase at this point in time.
1 MB couldn't possibly be a core principle in the inherent initial social contract as it was imposed at a later date and Satoshi. He later indicated how it could be raised as well. Its a good thing that almost no core devs want to keep it at 1MB...even Peter Todd has signed up to increase it recently by accepting SepSig.