The 2nd half of the Scaling Bitcoin conference was China, where many photos were taken of the world's biggest miners sharing a stage. So I don't see how Chinese Bitcoiners have "little say in the matter" of scaling.
But as one of the Chinese panelists said at the event, they felt like merely an audience who are asked to sit there to choose between options given to them.
Please explain the perceived benefit of 2MB over 1MB blocks at this time. Why are they, right now, superior in a cost vs. benefit analysis?
The perceive benefit varies. For some, it is that Bitcoin will continue to function as a payment network for individual users rather than a settlement network where only large transactions can be processed cost-efficiently. It is a modest change. It introduces less complexity. It gives SigWit more time.
Also, some believe that it is a test of Core team's willingness to listen to them. If they don't make what appears to be a small compromise, the Chinese fear that they will unlikely to do so in the future.
Thanks for the informative response.
It is helpful to clarify and confirm that some of the agitation for 2MB is merely for the sake of "a test of Core team's willingness to listen" (wherein "listen" actually means "obey").
A contentious hard fork is not a "a small compromise" because it puts the entire system at risk of catastrophic consensus failure (and will almost certainly crash the price).
The 'you have to give me something because otherwise you're uncompromising and I will pout' negotiation tactic will not work on Bitcoin engineering decisions.
Our Honey Badger really does not care about hurt feelings from pushy token-demanding nobodies (of any nationality).
If Honey Badger starts negotiating and compromising simply to appease emotionally needy peoples' pleas for a pat on the head, the Bitcoin experiment ends in failure.
I hope this helps you understand why a 2MB increase is not as easy as throwing a bone to a barking dog.