At worst harder, but not impossible.
LOL are you not following this thread? What easy way forward do you see emerging for the block size issue?
Consensus does not imply unanimous appeal. Although threads such as these help to flesh out different ideas and opinions, they do very little towards determining where consensus lies. This thread could represent a vocal majority just as easily as it could a small but vocal minority (on either side).
This is exactly where a more formal governance model (as I mentioned) could help. It too would surely be imperfect, but just about anything would be better than determining consensus based on who writes the most posts, thoughtful though they may be.
A formal governance model could draw distinct conclusions: yes the BIP passed, or no it didn't. If it didn't, it can lead to compromise. If, for example, I knew that there was little support for gavin's version, I for one would be much more willing to compromise. But I simply don't know.... instead, I choose to assume that people who support Bitcoin do so because they support the ideals of a free market, but I could be wrong.
If the ISO can finally manage to crank out C++11, despite the contentious issues and compromises that were ultimately required (and C++14 just two months ago too!), pretty much anything is possible IMO.
That's for a programming language not a protocol. Also see
Andreas Antonopoulos's comment on ossification considering hardware, which I also agree with.
I'm having trouble imagining a use case where embedded hardware with difficult-to-update software would connect to the P2P network, much less having anything to do with handling the blockchain, but my imagination isn't all that great. I also have trouble in general with
any device whose purpose is highly security related that isn't software upgradeable. (Such things do exist today, and they're equally ill-advised.)