But you're not against hard forks, are you? In a similar thread, you claim that a few blocksize bumps might happen, even with Segregated Witness. No? Those are hard forks.
Not against hard forks that have consensus. A 75% increase threshold is contentious hard fork which I do not support at all (regardless of who wants it; if Core put such a threshold I'd be against it).
Perhaps.
Or perhaps the blocksize limit being in protocol layer (when it was supposed to be a temporary spam measure) is an anomaly.
Only if you believe in the fairy tales of
charlatans and their magic fee market papers. If there was no limit, there would be no Bitcoin as we know it today.
Your attack on Peter_R notwithstanding, I don't believe the absence
of a blocksize limit is necessarily a fatal flaw. You don't have proof that it is,
and to believe you know with certainty it is, is surely closed-minded.
You're an advocate of decentralization right? Then EVEN IF there is an absence
of a fee market, there will be plenty of decentralized mining and security,
perhaps with a next generation Pow such as described here:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip015-decentralize-mining-with-the-fair-pow-algorithm-and-an-user-configurable-pow-setting.809/There is PLENTY of time to figure that out.
"Bitcoin as we know it today" won't need a "fee market" for decades.
I love the double standard that we need to figure this out decades ahead
of time but we don't need to do anything about full blocks until there's
a running backlog.