The blocksize debate asks the wrong question: not whether the blocksize should be increased, but more like what are the steps to do to make sure that the blocksize increase is as safe as possible: decreasing the header sizes, improving DOS attacks, synchronization between nodes are more important then the 15-liner that just increases the maximum block size.
The free market will solve the problem. If and when the blockchain runs out of capacity, only the transactions with higher transaction fees get through. Transaction fees will rise accordingly, and small transactions will become uneconomic.<p>Bitcoin transaction volume in dollars is flat.[1] It hasn't grown in the last year; it's declined slightly.<p>[1] <a href="https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usd" rel="nofollow">https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-...</a>
I would argue though that the recently controversy is an illustration of "the arguments are so contentious because the stakes are so small". In all of the recent debates there have been smart people arguing that "leaving things as is" is an acceptable course of action.<p>In the past, when there was an objectively clear problem, the community always quickly rallied around a fix.
I thought the spirit of Bitcoin is that it is governed only by algorithms. If Bitcoin needs massive proof of work and human governance, that reduces its value significantly IMO.