I am on thr same boat as you. But arguing with franky1 and jonald_fyookball have opened my eyes a little bit. There is a need for a slightly bigger blocksize but I do not agree the miners should have the power to decide.
Did they shut your eyes wide?
Dynamic blocks (which is what BU proponents suggest) is a sham. This won't change a thing neither now nor in the end. The problem is not with block sizes in and of themselves, the problem is in miners as such. Whatever is the size of the block, it is still up to miners to decide which transactions to include and which to dispose of (or whether to include any at all). This is what the BU paid shills won't tell you. And dynamic blocks won't change anything in this regard. The only way to make miners do their job is to completely demonopolize mining. In this way, SegWit is an interim solution as well but it opens doors to massive off-chain scaling that is set to efficiently and effectively eradicate mining monopoly eventually
But is it not that mining will always be a Chinese monopoly anyway? They control most of the hashing power and they manufacture all the chips and the ASICS for mining.
What good will the an offchain transaction layer do to demonopolize it? But it does give the users and the Bitcoin businesses, service providers and exchanges a form of leverage
That's the whole point
Though it may be hard to grasp at first, but miners do perfectly understand that. Massive off-chain transactions won't start all at once, they will grow gradually. But with their growth, the number of on-chain transactions will start to decline. And this is the crux of the matter here. Right now miners can bid up the transaction fees since there is tight competition between senders, but if there are less senders (i.e. less on-chain transactions), there will be less competition between them, and miners will have to include all transactions regardless of the fee size. Theoretically, mining pools could collude and start something like a strike, i.e. not include any transactions and mine empty blocks (or include only premium transactions leaving blocks half-empty), but this will first show their monopoly, then reveal how rogue they are in reality, and finally make it evident to anyone how flawed the current system is as of now. Ultimately, with block rewards hitting the floor, today's miners will have to wind up with all their now useless asics, and this will open doors to demonopolized mining available to anyone for a tiny or no profit at all. There are over 30 thousand Bitcoin full nodes running today which will readily confirm transactions for free, just to keep the network ticking (this is what they are doing presently anyway)
Do not get me wrong, I am for Segwit as a necessary way forward to "upgrade" the network. But I am also trying to learn everything without being biased. So I ask all these questions
No problem with that