I find his arguments persuasive. Gavin made a huge mistake giving commit access to the three smallblockers in core, with no procedure or process for selecting or removing them. This, combined with the perverse incentives of the miners behind the Great Firewall of China to keep Bitcoin small is catastrophic.

What I don't understand is the position of the Bitfury mining giant, the largest pool outside of China. What's their reason for opposing larger blocks? I read their explanation, but it doesn't make sense to me and I suspect there is another reason and they are not forthcoming bout it.

What is terrifying to me as an early adopter with far too large a percentage of my net worth in Bitcoin is that the political problems are so great and resolution so difficult that to any informed party, it is becoming clear that a reboot on an entirely new blockchain is more politically feasible and economically viable than fixing Bitcoin.

The inclusion in core of fee-adjusting code that effectively allows chargebacks prior to transaction confirmation is particularly troubling, as it destroys (perhaps intentionally) the business models of retailers and payment processors alike. 

My life savings is under the control of people I don't like and don't trust, but what bothers me more is the squandered opportunity to really advance the cause of freedom throughout the world.  But we still have the technology and that genie will not and cannot be put back in the bottle, so when and if an altcoin emerges that remains true to the original promise and vision of Bitcoin, I'll go there unless by some miracle the miners jettison core first.