they just can master computer language like 000101010100000101111, but it doesn't mean they can think better than others. Just like you don't understand chinese/japanese does not make you less intelligent than chinese/japanese people

I used to manage thousands of these so called experts,

People usually worship something they don't understand.

I recommend you read some fundamental computer knowledge, that battery, wire and bubble experiment is a good start, then followed by "from nand to tetris".

Even a teenager can build a computer using 3000 components.

If the block size debate had to be solved in ~3 days how would we get it done starting right now?

-snip-

Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed.  To say that the only people who can "vote", in a sense, are the people who have acquired the most capital during these years Bitcoin has been around is seriously fucked up.  Also, miners doesn't really seem to "vote" with their hashing power and distribution of nodes... they "vote" by bitching and complaining and holding threats over the Bitcoin community that they will just shut it all down if they don't get their way or reach a compromise... at least that's what I'm understanding from this whole situation, I could very well be wrong... but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves. 

Even if we had very good solutions to deploy right now, there is no way to implement those upgrades within 3 days via soft/hard fork without causing losses. Albeit one could argue that if the miners really wanted it you could push a soft fork really quickly (so far, it took weeks to activate one), but this is not the case with a hard fork (as everyone matters). There is no way of solving it in such a small amount of time without causing significant loses/confusion/chaos.

like you're always right? right? i think you need to stop being so cocky, really....

i dunno anymore who is worse, those that ignore the other while they think they are always right and actually post no-sense, or sig spammer

You're asking a very tough question. Nobody in this world can tell you the right solution nor is there a perfect solution. I'd say the only thing that we could decide to do within 3 days (16/02/2016) is a HF to raise the block size. However, I'd say a 1.5MB block size limit with the 'workaround' that Gavin used in order to prevent blocks that take too long to validate. Albeit, this is where thingss becomes tricky. You can't rush a HF and choosing a grace period that is too short could cause a negative effect. Even Garzik said that the minimum grace period should be 3 to 6 months. By this time Segwit would be ready for deployment. One could add a HF as a backup plan if Segwit fails to deliver on time, however the developers are certain that everything will be properly coded and tested in time.

---

---

Tl;dr: I'd say that you just can't solve it in '3 days' and especially not right now. If you had asked me this 1 year earlier, then raising the block size limit would be my final answer (most likely).