if those users do favor large blocks – they are not informed enough about decentralization & the main purpose of Bitcoin.
This is not the first time I have read such words. Such blatant effrontery shocked me every time.
After Satoshi gave Bitcoin to us, Bitcoin belongs to users, not solely one group such as devs, or miners, or service providers. If you think your opinion is superior to users and want to impose it on users, then you already become Judas, whatever contribution you made.
Miners/Roger played dirty, but now it's clear BU split will not become reality unless there is no longer any hope to have on-chain scaling definitely.
Bitcoin was, is, and will be based on Blockchain technology. The inefficiency of this decentralized tech is not a burden. It was talked by Satoshi and early Bitcoiners and the result was it's viable and sustainable. The basic situation hasn't changed much since then. Even if SW or others are good, there is no reason to keep the blockchain as a toy or symbol, while more and more people are entering Blockchain field, and Blockchain tech itself still can solve the problem. If you dismissed Satoshi's words so easily, then you are on the road to becoming Judas.
There is no reason to maintain 1mb limit when eight years have passed and it hurts user experience so much. This limit was not expected to last so long when it was first implemented.
The SW 2X capacity lift is far less than enough. More people need more capacity beyond SW. It's too early to introduce "fee market" when there is still 12.5 btc per block. The fee is unnecessarily high.
The second layer can't be at the cost of making the first layer be difficult and expensive to use.
Besides, it's not reasonable to refuse block size increase with the perfunctory "centralization risk" explanation which Satoshi did not see as a threat to "decentralization" while introducing LN instead, which everyone knows will be more centralized inevitable.