What exactly is wrong with this proposal, that justifies all this drama?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1503099#msg1503099That proposal does not force miners to increase the size of their blocks, or include any transactions they don't want to include.
It does not force any node to relay or store blocks they don't want to.
It allows the maximum block size to be determined by distributed consensus instead of centrally managed by fiat. That's the exact opposite of what people are complaining about, and the solution of leaving the limit in place is the problem they claim to want to avoid.
As far as the hard fork goes didn't we have a couple of those last year anyway, such as multisig transactions?
I thought one of the main points being brought up is that on the contrary it allows Joe Superminer to progressively drive more and more competitors off the net until he and he alone controls all the mining. (Presumably pretending to be more than one mining operation, of course, to keep people from noticing he has become the sole arbiter of the network.)