Same here as well. It's a real shame there have been so many great solutions that have been presented to the community but yet nothing is being considered. I'm overall just in astonishment, which I think many feel the same way (and why others are working on Classic, Unlimited, etc). I'm hopeful still that we can get past and move forward and on to bigger and greater things. There are so many genius minds in bitcoin, and I hate to see so much time and talent wasted on this.

I'd be in agreement with a dynamic cap, but it gets complicated to make it ungameable, and we probably don't yet have the information/experience to come to a consensus on the parameters needed.I find myself unable to vote in the poll because it's not asking the right questions.I'm astonished that the whole debate is framed in block size terms when what everyone wants is transaction rate increases. Even core now has to state rate increases in terms of 'effective' block size increases. That's just stupid, but the politics are forcing it. I'm scared when politics starts making technical decisions and you should be too.You say 'nothing is being considered'. What do you mean? See the roadmap below to see how wrong that statement is.The truth is that the debate comes down to a choice between a rushed hard fork now, or a segwit non-hardfork approach which can yield transaction rate improvements safely, sooner than a safe hard fork, and almost as quickly as the rushed hard fork. Segwit has many other benefits (even classic agrees with that statement); for example an end to transaction malleabilty.The first question there shows approximate expected dates for capacity increases on the core roadmap.