My initial reaction to this is that while this makes a lot of sense over the next 18 months with the impact felt over the next 30 months I would advise extreme caution after that. I believe there are important lessons here from Bitcoin and also from Ripple and even Dash.

The reason why Bitcoin is hard to fork can best be summarized as a result of maturity. Satoshi did not have any problem implementing the 1MB limit in 2010, now compare this with the debate over the 1MB limit that has been raging since at least 2013. There were clear warnings back in 2010 with Bitcoin as can be seen from the following thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0;all The following quote from caveden in November 2010 is prophetic.

“Only recently I learned about this block size limit.

I understand not putting any limit might allow flooding. On the other hand, the smaller your block, the faster it will propagate to network (I suppose.. or is there "I've got a block!" sort of message sent before the entire content of the block?), so miners do have an interest on not producing large blocks.

I'm very uncomfortable with this block size limit rule. This is a "protocol-rule" (not a "client-rule"), what makes it almost impossible to change once you have enough different softwares running the protocol. Take SMTP as an example... it's unchangeable.

I think we should schedule a large increase in the block size limit right now while the protocol rules are easier to change. Maybe even schedule an infinite series of increases, as we can't really predict how many transactions there will be 50 years from now.

Honestly, I'd like to get rid of such rule. I find it dangerous. But I can't think of an easy way to stop flooding without it, though.”

The reality is that for a true Decentralized Virtual Currency (I am using the FinCEN Definition http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html ) it becomes very hard to hard fork after two years, unless the hard fork is driven by an emergency or it fundamentally does not change any of the economic aspects of the currency. This is the key lesson from Bitcoin. We must consider that as more and more services are built on top of Monero it will become harder and harder to hard fork. Even something like changing the number of block per hour has in Monero has already become harder simply because of the advent of XMR.TO. XMR.TO relies on confirming a Monero transaction and having Bitcoin sent to a Bitcoin address withing the 10-15 min period that many Bitcoin payment processor use. Now change the blocktime from 1 min to say 2 min and the economics of XMR.TO as a business are fundamentally changed. Just take a look on how hard it is for the Internet to change from IPv4 to IPv6. This change will only happen when the pain of not changing becomes real. Hard forks are possible in Bitcoin now but they must be driven by significant pain, such as for example the hard fork that occurred in the Spring of 2013. I believe Bitcoin will hard fork over the 1MB, but only after the pain becomes obvious, as will the Internet “hard fork” to IPv6 but again only after the pain is felt.

The alternative is what Ripple has done and to a large degree what Dash is doing. While it is simple for Ripple Labs to “hard fork” Ripple this comes at the huge cost of becoming a Centralized Virtual Currency. This makes the developers MSBs and give a regulator the leverage they need to push through the protocol changes they desire. This is precisely what has happened to Ripple. Dash will likely provide an important test case because it literally straddles the Decentralized Virtual Currency / Centralized Virtual Currency Definition. How regulators deal with Dash will provide critical precedents and lessons not just for Monero but for many Virtual Currencies. The lesson here is make hard forks easy and efficient and one runs the very real risk of becoming a Centralized Virtual Currency with the developers as the “Administrators”.

One a related note the idea of forcing software upgrades every 6 months to a year as an ongoing policy is doomed to failure. One only needs to take a look at the fierce resistance most business big and small have to Microsoft's software upgrade cycle. Who can blame them. Upgrading Windows means significant costs with miniscule if any productivity gains. The proper response from any business is to delay the upgrade as much as possible in order to minimize these costs. This resistance is also manifested for example in the Internet IPv4 to IPv6 upgrade for exactly the same reason.

In conclusion I say what is being proposed will work very well for only two maybe three six month cycles after that Monero will become like SMTP, IPv4/IPv6 etc with hard forks only possible in emergencies and / or when the pain of not hard forking is patently obvious. The alternative is a degree of centralization and regulatory risk that most members of the community will find unacceptable.

Edit: Fork and pray keeps the regulator away.