A group of developers looking to create the "killer bitcoin app" foresaw that the 1 MB block size limit would eventually cause problems that need to be resolved, the solution they devised was BlockStream. An increase in the block size makes Blockstream no longer the "killer app" they hoped it would be, and so they appose the increase. It's that simple. (and this is very dangerous for bitcoin)

Now they are in a position in which they have invested a great deal into Blockstream on the false assumption that block sizes would never be raised. The proposal by Gavin and Hearn challenges their pet (money making) solution that they have invested in.

Gavin and Hearn will not be making profits from Bitcoin XT, but you had better believe the developers of Blockstream will be profiting from the block size remaining unnecessarily low.

This "split" is being caused by the developers who are deeply invested in Blockstream, and the lack of consensus of the developers is what is triggering such uncertainty in the Bitcoin Community. These "small blockists" who have a financial interest in keeping the blocks low are causing this VERY DANGEROUS rift in Bitcoin, not Gavin and Hearn.

A fork that increases block size takes at least 6 months to accomplish, and if we wait until a massive increase in adoption occurs and people discover 8 hour transaction times and very very high fees, Bitcoin will be destroyed in the eyes of the masses. Gavin and Hearn are right to push this change well before it becomes an issue to avoid the kinds of consequences that would cause massive problems in the confidence in Bitcoin in the eyes of the masses.

We have to act early to avoid these problems. And Bitcoin XT is not being forced on anyone. 75% consensus is more of a majority than it takes to vote in a president of the United States. I think it is very reasonable to allow people to "vote" in the way Bitcoin XT is being presented.

The argument that increased blocks requires to much memory and too high speed of internet is no argument against block sizes. It is only an argument for innovation in memory and internet speeds. And this is inevitable.

I think the major problem is that "Bitcoin XT" has a name, which is different than just "Bitcoin" creating the illusion in the minds of people that it is something fundamentally different. Other changes have been implemented into bitcoin in the exact same way that Bitcoin XT is currently being implemented in the past, but they never had a fancy name like Bitcoin XT does before. If you watch this video with Andreas Antonopolus speaking with Gavin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWhShzzELg his intentions are clear, and Antonopolus does a wonderful job of framing the problem and the proposed solutions. I don't think Antonopolus would remain silent if he thought this were a major threat to bitcoin on a fundamental level.

If you watch this video with Hearn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w it is also clear the intentions behind XT are intentions we all share for Bitcoin. The arguments for Bitcoin XT are logically and I agree with them, the arguments against Bitcoin XT are fear based, emotional, and irrational. And this is dangerous for bitcoin!

I think the fear that people are expressing is being caused by people who have a deep interest in BlockStream, not a deep interest in Bitcoin. I think this split is very dangerous, and unless anyone can present a clear and logical argument for why the block size should not be increased, I am in support of Bitcoin XT. The BlockSize increase is necessary and a good thing for bitcoin! Imagine if there were no block size limit and Jeff Garzik and Peter Todd and gang were suggesting we implement a limit, the resistance would be immense! They would never get 75% to vote for it! But Bitcoin XT conceivable could (and should!) because it is necessary lest we wait for a rush of new users who fill up the blocks and transaction times of 8 hours and huge fees and BlockStream steps in to offer the solution and rake in the profits! I require a logical argument to oppose Bitcoin XT and I have yet to find one!

Present a logical argument against increasing the block size or admit you are harming Bitcoin by perpetuating this split!