The item that mostly worries me from the proposal is that it doesn't address quadratic validation time.
Solution is pretty trivial:
To prevent worsening block verification time because of the O(N^2) hashing
problem, the simple restriction that transactions cannot be larger than 1Mb
has been kept. Therefore the worse-case of block verification time has only
doubled.
Ah, thanks, didn't know that it was
that trivial (I wrongly thought that the "maximum block size" and "maximum transaction size" were connected in some way).
Is this included in the miners' proposal? If Lerner is one of the developers contributing to that solution (I read RSK Labs is participating), then it should be the case. Is there already publicly viewable source code for the "agreement update"?
If this is the case, I think, the Core supporters should simply (grudgingly) accept the proposal. It's better than an UASF because of the significant danger of a chain split - and it's really not worth it to polarize even more only because of a different timeline (HF in late 2017 or in 2018 ...). They should however try to convince the "consensus group" to change the HF date to a more distant point in the future. It should not be that difficult.