Quote from another post which actually made me come the f..k down a bit, think, and have a sympathy for the opposite side of this whole block size debate. I honestly thought this particular bitcoiner was just a rigid ideologue, but I was wrong - this scaling issue is as real to him and thousands of other bitcoiners as it gets. Instead of fighting our personal believes / ideology / philosophy may be we should start with that.
I'm a relatively small Bitcoin investor but I also actually pay my employees in Bitcoin. It saves me thousands of dollars a year vs Paypal. The recent network congestion was a firsthand exposure of the dangers of failing utility as transactions started getting stuck and fees became dangerously uncompetitive.
Personally, I have always viewed Bitcoin as a precious commodity and a store of value first. As any other working stiff who has to wake up early in the morning, go to work, come back after dark completely exhausted, I wanted to find a monetary system where my sweat, my time and my energy were exchanged for honest form of money... Form of money which does not get diluted, does not split in two or three, and does not loose it's value over time. Outside more traditional precious metals Bitcoin was an obvious choice for me (despite being a risky one). That's why I wanted to see at least 90% consensus (not 51, 60 or 75) before any Bitcoin hard fork could be seriously considered. That said I do not have any valid arguments against larger blocks, faster transaction confirmations and lower fees, if solution is graceful, does not destroy Bitcoin brand, rarity and trust of over half of it's users.