Everyone keeps using the word "compromise", but no one is actually budging on their stance. Most of the people fixated on increasing the blocksize still want an increase of at least 200% and most of the people fixated on not touching the 'base' blocksize still want 0% increase until an unspecified time in the future.
It seems obvious when you say it, but apparently it has to be spelled out in no uncertain terms: An
actual compromise would require
both camps to soften their stance a little. Is anyone prepared to do that? Stop drawing lines in the sand over what you won't accept and start talking about what you will accept. And for what must be the dozenth time,
the blocksize doesn't have to be a whole number and nor does it have to be static.
There can be no compromise in this debate since it is about the hardfork
mechanism itself, not scaling. The scaling debate is only the tool currently
being used to push for a hardfork. In theory, if scaling was the only issue,
there are many different answers that already exist without using a hardfork.
Big Blockers want to use a hardfork, Small Blockers want to use optimizations/
second layers/softforks. So, what is the compromise between those two sides?
There is no compromise for that, only capitulation to one or the other.
By offering a combination of both, it defeats the main cause of the other
position. It ignores the true meaning behind this impasse. That is why this
debate will continue till capitulation or contentious hardfork.
Anyone who believes that is clearly in denial. Sooner or later there will be a necessary change that can't be achieved via soft fork. Hardforks can't be avoided forever, so everyone needs to stop soiling themselves at the mere thought of one. Also, hardforks don't preclude optimisations and second layers, so you can cease that decidedly underhanded insinuation right there. Are you seriously saying you would have opposed SegWit if it had been proposed as a hardfork?
In the event of a contentious hard fork, I suspect the narrative and rhetoric on these boards would automatically be that the miners forking away were the cause of the split, but history will judge that it takes two parties to have an argument. Those too belligerent to be reasoned with, who had already closed their mind to anything that wasn't a softfork, would be deemed equally culpable.