[edited out]
OK, so you keep asserting that BTC has a plan to deal with the negative effects of persistently full blocks. HOWEVER, after repeated requests to reveal what that plan actually consists of, you do nothing but deflect and dissemble.
I call BullShit.
attempting to put some kind of burden on me and others to describe core's plan in a way that is acceptable to you...
Despite your protestations, you have utterly failed
-- in any manner whatsoever -- to describe any core plan for dealing with the negative effects of full blocks.
You are not the boss of me. I don't have to follow either your mandate or your framework. I have answer the question sufficiently well enough in my several posts, and if you need to read through the lines, then fine, you should be able to handle that.. smarty pants.
'Acceptable to me' has nothing the fuck to do with it.
Yes, it does. You are creating an assignment and a framework about what is "acceptable." Go play that game somewhere else. We are watching walls and corners, here. Not talking about how supposedly wonderful the centralized planning of your bcash variants nonsense is.
I like bitcoin's conservative approach.
Then you are deluded. BTC's The SegWit Omnibus Changeset was the most radical change ever to be foisted upon Bitcoin, from every discernable dimension. It changed the protocol radically, it changed the supported use cases radically, it changed the economics radically,
Whether those were "radical" changes or NOT, I give two ratt's asses about it.
So what you are really saying above is that you are satisfied with core's decidedly NON-conservative approach. I can take that at face value, but is it any wonder that I reply to your counterfactual statements?
That's not what I am saying. I already said what I am saying, and your summary of what I supposedly said was not it.

And, when it comes to "counterfactual statements", you seem to be very good at that yourself... seemingly deliberately so.