It's not about being biased or financially dependent on lightning network - that's all bullshit. The main point is that there is no facts or logic to back up making an increase in the blocksize limit at this time.
Because adding a 2mb blocksize in excange for SEGWIT would keep the chains & communities from splitting in two and destroying both sides. Even if it's not necessary by luke-jr's opinion - if it is 2MB blocks or 2 chains which one is really worse for bitcoin?
This is the third time around. BitcoinXT, Classic & now Unlimited. I fully expect this one to die out due to Unlimited's lack of professionalism & experience. Then continued gridlock on SEGWIT. At some point the industry will decide it's tired of waiting for > 7tps
What you are saying is that core should agree to increase the blocksize limit to 2mb merely because if they do not, then the BU miner group is going to fork. That is hardly a justification.
The burden to show why it is needed is on anyone proposing, and then it gets discussed and if core agrees then code gets written and tested and then signaling and implemented.
Core is not any monolith or any small group. You gotta convince a mostly decentralized... if you cannot get the stuff through official channels, then bitcoin just stays the same. Bitcoin is not broken, so staying the same is not the end of the world - even if some group ends up forking into some alt that might initially have more hash power. Once they fork, then it is much more likely that 95% segwit consensus would be achieved. thereafter, bitcoin begins running with seg wit (whether it has smaller hashpower or not, bitcoin will be fine).
In other words, merely the threat of a fork seems way too insufficient in order to cave in to some proposed change that is not technically justifiable
My understanding is that Hal Finney suggested implementing the 1MB blocksize to prevent bloat in the short term. Satoshi agreed. Many daily transfers then would now be considered dust. 2MB is the next logical step since it does not seem that maintaining 1MB was ever the intention.
You are merely asserting that 2mb is necessary because it sounds like the next logical step, but it does not mean that 2mb is necessary or justifiable at this time. There are official channels to submit proposals, and I am sure that core has entertained such 2mb proposals, and don't see a reason to implement 2mb.
Core has a pretty solid way of maintaining the status quo and maintaining that any changes to core software is largely uncontested - because if you need to achieve 95% consensus then there is going to be wide consensus.. if BU and its software cannot achieve that internally, then their solution has been to propose changing the governance and achieving some smaller level of consensus (such as 75%), and if they are able to get that level of miners to follow, then they will achieve it; however, it seems that the rest of the bitcoin community might not go along with such a low consensus level - especially if they continue to have buggy software and less than a solid plan.
So BU has the problem of the technical non-necessity of their proposal, but they also have the problem that they are attempting to change bitcoin governance with their discussion of a 75% consensus level (if they are able to achieve that with their vision forward).