VeritasSapere, I know you said you will answer in sever days. (I understand scope of my post got quite out of hand.)
But I have some simpler answer: Today I have carefully read
BIP100 and I very much like the reasoning presented there. Although I have stated and explained my position which somewhat differs from BIP100, I can accept such change and such approach in reaching change. If it gains consensus approval (
like here in step 5 - virtually no veto-like blocking from anyone, little number of stand asides, not too many reservations, and big active support).
I still intend on giving a proper response to your post, sorry it is taking so long. Part of the reason why I have been so busy is because I gave a speech on the subject and turned it into an article as well. I look forward to turning my attention to your post, since insightful and sincere posts are always enlightening for the development of my own thinking as well and help me to further develop my own arguments.
To answer this question, I do support BIP100 as a compromise over BIP101. However I am skeptical of the 32MEG limit within BIP100. So I do still prefer BIP101. However I do trust Proof of Work more then I would any development team lol, so in principle I do like the idea of giving the miners control over the block size, though as I said earlier it would be better if there was no limit build into BIP100 or at the very least the limit should be bigger. Since I would prefer it if we did not have to go through all of this again in a few years from now when we will need to increase this limit again.
I have one more concern with BIP100 however, which is that no client that I can download now has BIP100 implemented and no plans for a hard fork have yet been made. Which means that for me to truly and wholeheartedly support BIP100 we would need these things in place and introduced in similar way that Bitcoin XT was. Since I do not want to just trust or believe that the Core team will implement BIP100 into the client themselves, since that was the entire reason for the existence of XT in the first place, since the Core development team seems to be unable to implement any of the BIP proposals. Which is why it will most likely need to be another alternative client that should push for this change. However since this does not exist yet, is why on some levels BIP100 is not a viable solution yet. I do hope that this will change in the future.
Here is the article I have written on this subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335
