so abusing the consensus mechanism by not allow users to choose, thus not even giving any new rules a chance.
Anyone is free to choose. Why don't you fork the code and promote it? See if users actually support your fork? Why do people insist on leveraging hash rate to provoke users to change networks?
Just leave miners out of it. If forkers had support, they would fork, and the community would follow. That they refuse to fork and instead lobby miners to pressure the rest of us to fork is very telling.
the code of a 2mb block is not the problem.. even core agree 4mb is fine..
but there is drama and doomsday scenarios that stop a consensual fork.. not related to code.
but related to actually making implementations have the same rules so that no one has control and freedom of choice to use different implementations.
core want to take bitcoin offchain and away from the original idea, and they will do this without nodes needing to vote. they want full control
there have already been 6 attempts to offer an onchain solution. but the debate has not been about code logic. but social illogics.
even now.. Luke JR is starting to receive the R3kt campaign experience of social illogics, because luke wants to release a consensual hardfork using cores code.(meaning a safe option)
again its not about code. but they want to attack the social illogics because the code allows true capacity growth safely. the activation parameters offers hassle free rule changes.. but because it puts a dent into the plan of moving users offchain and into sidechains, the social debate begins trying to kill off freedom of choice by using false doomsdays and personality attacks.
in short core want to be the sole decision makers. and even if one of their own wants freedom of choice, they will throw them under the bus
to answer your question directly..
anyone can make the most majestic code ever that does exactly as expected. but it would get wrecked in the social drama of going against cores corporate plan of offchain middlemen controls