Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship. Ofc, he should not go to the stupid mainstream media, who want the blood of bitcoin.
Still, he raised good points in his blog post (not in the NYT article!!!) about that there should NOT be a fee market, which is arising artificially, based on an old DoS prevention mechanism (which was always thought to
be temporary!). There is no fee market (or shouldn't be), this is system with a >6bil$ market cap, with less than 0,1% world population using it, and they ALREADY want to develop a blockage with transaction throughput?? Just count: doesn't matter, how high fees go - it is still impossible to do more than 4-7 ts/s!!! Fees do not solve this hardcap!! People will just not transact.

That's why the Harn "whistleblow" in MSM caused panic sell, many realized we MUST act NOW. Check out, 70% of big miners/ processing companies /exchanges already signed Bitcoin Classic https://bitcoinclassic.com/ after 2 days...

Or will they be just censored again? You mean 70-80% of the industry can be censored? :-)


EDIT: I was pretty much agnostic in this debate about blocksize so far, both sides has pros/cons. But the idea, that free market be abolished by a technical policy limit and give rise to "fee market" (means: "no, no, you are too Philippine to send cash home, we now have 10$ fee for the next 114 blocks, k thxbye), and "dissidents" must be censored, and "burned"- it is OS ffs, how the ***k they dared to censor?!? - so these two alone pushed me into "raise that blocksize" camp. And yes, i run a node, and no i don't care, will just buy a bigger HDD.