When the time comes that a block >1MB is mined, and built upon... it's a safe bet that you've had plenty of warning.

Thanks Joffrey, but you may find that it's not only Stannis that challenges your rule.

This would be problematic if a merchant kept her excessive block size limit
constantly below the actual block size that is being accepted by the majority on
the network.

However in real life we can expect the consensual block size limit to update
itself infrequently, thus allowing ample time for the users to adjust.

I think many (well-intentioned) BU critics have hard time of letting go
from concentrating exclusively on how a particular implementation
works, to include the social-economical activity of the players involved:
users, merchants, full node operators, miners, devs.

I agree insofar that the original model attempts to
fix security and consensus issues entirely on code level.

But things have changed, and "one cpu, one vote" does
not apply anymore. Neither the Core approach or BU approach
to dealing with the blocksize issue can be said to exist
inherently as a property of Bitcoin. Although I personally
feel that the latter approach is more in line with the
"philosophy" or "vision".

But I'm all for bridging the gap between the technology
and socio-economics with programmatic solutions that
can assist users in deciding the block size settings and
distinguish between honest players and sybil attackers.
For instance, statistical analysis of advertised block settings
on the network, and an option of registering settings on the blockchain.

* Le One Year Later *

Despite all the huffing and puffing, no block >1MB has been mined by Bitcoin_Unlimited.

And having been rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater exactly as predicted, Cconvert2G36 no longer posts here.

Poor thing.  I did warn him Maester Satoshi's wildfire burns something fierce.  But he was too fucking arrogant to listen to his superiors.