Says the guy who wants to change the source to increase block size.
The source code has already been changed - to add in the 1 MB block size limit.
We were promised it was temporary.
So, why even make baby steps toward something which is not tenable? The ONLY thing which can be accomplished is to ruin what is otherwise a solution with huge potential.
We need layers which allow Bitcoin to reach it's ultimate potential as a truly revolutionary development. I can think of nothing more approprate for this than sidechains.
---
I actually love the idea of 'treechains', but that is simply not tenable as a core at this point. Hopefully they can be proven on a sidechain. Really one of the most legitimate arguments against 'sidechains' is that they could foster developments which make the Bitcoin core seem so inadequate that there is a strong incentive to simply deprecate it. I'm not all that concerned that this will happen, and if it did it is likely that value would be imported from Bitcoin anyway due to it's valuations created by it's strong network effect.
None of what you describe here, and want to happen, will mean very much if Bitcoin is not widely used.
What separates Bitcoin from all the other alts is its larger ecosystem, the network effect of many more miners, users, holders and merchants.
Allowing the transaction throughput to be crippled is the single most damaging community action that could be taken against the network, worse even than a 51% attack. At the current rate of growth this will occur in 2015. None of the sidechains, treechains or any other load balancing solution will be fully deployed, even if they are solutions to volume growth, (rather than just 2.0 applications). Further, global bandwidth is improving at 50% per year, so the existing 1MB is not just a fixed limit but a
contracting one relative to the prevailing level of technology which Bitcoin employs.