Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.
He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.
What's do you mean?
Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.
It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.
I guess this is the root of the problem, that different people want - and therefore grasp bitcoin - different capabilities/usage. The question for me is what bitcoin can/should be used/capable off, or should one side "win", and change it to it's image? What is the goal exactly - more to just store of value, a digital gold, or a 100k txs/s payment channel?
Can we technically do both of these simultaneously or it is impossible within the blockchain and we need complementaries like LN etc.? Is allowing micro txs ON the main chain a bad or good thing? Should users compete for blockspace with fees as it is a scarce resource, and who should decide how much of it should be available (blocksize limit)? Can anyone or a group decide that at all, and if yes how?
IMO these are more ideological question than technical ones.