Necessitating future adjustment. A change that does not resolve the fundamental problem, and addresses only the immediate perceptions of today.
Now define "right". Is it simply a block size which grows/shrinks dynamically with real world bandwidth over time? What if usage demand is far higher? What if the BTC exchange rate experiences unending volatility due to uncertainty about usage capacity (ie its user base)?
In other words does not needing future bandwidth adjustment automatically mean "right"?
Correct. If you fix something and it never needs fixing again, and just keeps working from them on, you have fixed in a right way.
Automatic adjustment based on the environment of the future at least has a possibility of being right.
We have this potential with the block chain.
We can play "what if" about all sorts of things, but at least the ones you mention here are not going to take additional hard forks to accommodate if we use any either of the methods described in this thread. Each of them is responsive to usage demand to adjust capacity.
In the same way that a fixed 1MB is "wrong".
Not according to
these people. They think 1MB is the right answer for "many more years" and until we know it's "safe" to change. Can't you see any answer given is subjective? With that being the case doesn't it make sense to adopt a solution which can fit the most common perception of Bitcoin's promise, which certainly includes global usage, and can win popular support?
At best they are saying "not now".
Previously you suggested that you thought Satoshi left because you think he didn't have anything more to offer. Another plausible hypothesis would be understanding that he would have undue influence continuing to contribute using that name, and that the resulting groupthink might cause the project to suffer.