Which of these outcomes are preferable to you, in the event miners switch to BU with a chain-split?
Give miners control over block size limit (via hardfork; ie, concede to BU) 2338
Change proof-of-work algorithm to protect Bitcoin and adapt (via hardfork) 1380
Slower blocks (incl. effective capacity reduction) for a few months until difficulty adjusts (NO hardfork) 1063
Change difficulty adjustment to adapt to reduction of mining faster (via hardfork) 363
I've been a bitcoin user and hodler since early 2011. I use bitcoin for business every single day for over 6 years and it is my sole source of income. Extremely disappointed and actually angry about the current state of the network: exponentially rising miner tx fees, unpredictable and slow confirmation times, vanishing use cases. Even worse than that are the clueless and aloof attitudes of devs who don't seem to think these are problems, or that these problems don't even exist. Shame on you. You're strangling bitcoin and then have the nerve to say that an attempt to raise block size is an "attack" on the "real" bitcoin. Stop tweeking out on the code and just get out of the way.
I assume soon Luke (or r/bitcoin crowd) will claim foul and say the votes were "brigaded" or whatever similarly dumb thing. Anyway, I'm a person that owns bitcoin and just wants bitcoin to scale by itself if possible! Thats it, so f_ you luke and all your LN BS, and SEGWit nonsense. Bitcoin works (or at least did work before you got involved) so just let it scale the way the miners (the ones actually doing the scaling themselves) see fit.
Indeed bitcoin block size (not max block size) did increase since the start until we hit a temporary limited added against spam. Today we a stuck a wall that should not been there. For those saying that we don't want 15 gig block don't be naive, miners know that bigger the block are more chance they are getting orphan. And please stop over engineering on potential problems while ignoring real one we have right now.