In it, I asked people to email me objections I might have missed. I would still appreciate it if people do that; it is impossible to keep up with this mailing list, /r/bitcoin posts and comments, and #bitcoin-wizards and also have time to respond thoughtfully to the objections raised.
I would very much like to find some concrete course of action that we can come to consensus on. Some compromise so we can tell entrepreneurs "THIS is how much transaction volume the main Bitcoin blockchain will be able to support over the next eleven years."
I've been pretty clear on what I think is a reasonable compromise (a one-time increase scheduled for early next year), and I have tried to explain why I think it it is the right set of tradeoffs.
There ARE tradeoffs here, and the hard question is what process do we use to decide those tradeoffs? How do we come to consensus? Is it worth my time to spend hours responding thoughtfully to every new objection raised here, or will the same thing happen that happened last year and the year before-- everybody eventually gets tired of arguing angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, and we're left with the status quo?
I AM considering contributing some version of the bigger blocksize-limit hard-fork patch to the Bitcoin-Xt fork (probably "target a hobbyist with a fast Internet connection, and assume Nelson's law to increase over time), and then encouraging merchants and exchanges and web wallets and individuals who think it strikes a reasonable balance to run it.
And then, assuming it became a super-majority of nodes on the network, encourage miners to roll out a soft-fork to start producing bigger blocks and eventually trigger the hard fork.
Because ultimately consensus comes down to what software people choose to run.