Yeah, keep trolling guys. I surely care

Block size soft limit is already a configurable parameter inside bitcoind.

Nobody is trolling here, seriously. We are just pointing out that your arguments are idiotic.

I'm not sure we're talking the same thing here.
What I call "soft limit" is not a personal limit on the blocks you'll generate or relay.
What I mean would be a set of value-pairs (X,Y), where X is a limit for block acceptance, and Y is the number of block deeps a third-party block violating X needs to be in the chain for you to accept to mine on top of it.
For example, let's say, for block size soft limit you set (1Mb, 1), (5Mb, 2) and (10Mb, 3). That means that if you receive a block larger than 1Mb, you refuse to build on top of it, unless it has already another block on top of it. For >5Mb, it needs to be 2 blocks deep. For 10Mb, 3 blocks deep and so on.
I also strongly suggest soft-limits on "percentage of unknown transactions (not in memory pool)", because that's how a spammer-miner would create gigantic blocks: by filling it with transactions that he does not intend to broadcast, as that would require paying lots of fees.

AFAIK none of these are implemented, right?

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

Yes.  If you're feeling helpful, please create a wiki page or other document that organizes all of the pro/con arguments: economic and technical. And maybe another wiki page that organizes all of the various proposals for how to increase the block size.

I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

Please, don't be silly.
I'm sorry for your lose, but should I be bringing the deaths in my family as well? I've surely had some recently, but it's just not an argument for a bitcoin development board.

As for the wiki page, or pros/cons list - I've been there and I am now old enough to know that the only reason anyone would refer me to such a means, is if he wants to get rid of me.
So thanks, but I won't use it.

If you're going to ask that question it's also reasonable to demand that everybody who is opposed to raising the limit disclose whether or not they are developing or invested in competing cryptocurrencies or transaction processing systems.

That is also a conflict of interests.

This thread is a complete rehash of months of debate. I can't wait until we can get past this issue. I truly hope that the efforts here http://utxo.tumblr.com/ are successful, because helping scalability means helping Bitcoin and this might the most important work in the history of the currency.

I would have been rude if I was lying to have someone really close to me died recently.
But since it really happened, and you feel sorry for Gavin, but not at all for me and my mom, then I can only tell you back: fuck you!
Still, the code does not care about who died and someone has to take the stake and develop it further in the right direction.