To say "there is no immediate technical problem so we should wait" is a fallacy because the technical choice of doing nothing regarding the blocksize limit have ideological and economic implications.
But devs aren't waiting, they are coding solutions or half-measures / band-aids.
What is at stake today is the value of your bitcoins in 20 years, and if you don't want to allow that fucking blocksize limit to increase because of an ideological fallacy I have some bad news for you.
What we need is a tx/s capacity increase plus entering a more grown-up phase where the network stops processing spam and junk and stops acting as a third-party storage database for near zero or zero cost.
Practically all developers agree to it, whether it is in 3 months, 5 months, 1 year, it'll happen and we'll be ok.
Hard forking a currency into 2 currencies with the "orthodox" and the "catholics" each supporting their own part of the schism? No, that's the stuff with which nightmares are made of. Gavin, Hearn and all who sided with them are extremely dangerous to bitcoin, either because they lack the awareness of what they are trying to do, or because they are intentionally doing what they are trying to do and camouflaging it with the pretext of "saving" bitcoin in a situation where it doesn't need saving. At most a few fees will be bumped and some dust/spam will be crowded out if core devs are slow in their own rollout. That's all that will happen when blocks get full. It will not harm the "network effect" of normal users. But a fork will definitely destroy confidence in bitcoin forever because it sets the precedent where for each consequent "disagreement" we can have a new schism. Do you think that's good news for a 20-year horizon investment?
Just think it through. Is the precedent of a violent hard fork (and the knowledge that at any time the currency can split into two currencies / diluting the money supply / having people rage dumping on the "opponent" fork which they don't believe into etc etc) more beneficial than a few months delay in a more proper transaction capacity increase - when the issue isn't even pressing? Can the answer ever be yes to that?
very much agree with what you're saying - it's like they're trying to fix something that's not broken , insisting it is when it isn't , and going about it in the most dangerous way possible - these people are intentionally endangering bitcoin by proposing violent fork after violent fork and then screaming and howling when people don't want it - it's dangerous and shortsighted at best , purposefully destructive at worst - i for one don't care how long it takes , or if blocks do get full with some increased regularity , or what exact technical changes wind up being made to increase scaling capacity AS LONG AS those changes are made to core by the core devs. you want to change bitcoin ? join the core devs. you want to make something new ? launch a fuckin altcoin. but don't call it bitcoin , because it isn't and can't be by definition.