I just wanted to reiterate this statement from Armory developer's opinion of BU because I found it very potent. This is the ultimate argument of BU, and one that holds astounding consequences. We have all seen the results of voting power and the last thing I want is to be forced under the Trump or Hillary equivalent of blocksize limitations. And to preempt btc brigade, currently the blocksize is not determined by voting.

"The only acceptable solution in my eyes is an algorithmic one."

This is why I always thought that if we HF to raise the blocksize it only makes any sense to do one with a set predictable growth pattern. Something like Wuille's 17{88c91daedd271a990a10650c05d769cae2765e0603edf30ca95f18704e5748e8} per year increase adjusted every 97 days. see BIP103

The desire for lower fees is infinite, if fees are low, people will want them even lower. Complaints about fees started well over a year ago, when they were still next to nothing. This will never change, and the last thing we want is for the built in response to be to dump the resource costs onto the network rather than developing a layered alternative that adds to, rather than takes away from, Bitcoin's fundamental stability and decentralization. If there were no other options, the argument would be significantly different. But there are a vast number of innovative and decentralized solutions to scaling that give 10x, 100x, or even 1000x capacity that don't include the massive risks of BU.