These three posts combined subtly actually have all the issues as to why miners haven't started signalling support and give the best summary for why we're currently in a stalemate.

Quote from: achow101 on February 07, 2017, 02:27:58 AM

A lot of the problems seem to stem from miscommunication and lack of communication between developers and miners. It seems that some miners have taken a grudge against the developers (all of them in general) for not consulting them when devising scaling solutions.

Not quite true, they have been consulted at various times, and ran their own meetings, and most of the time were unconvinced about segwit and kept pushing for bigger blocks.

Quote from: HostFat on February 07, 2017, 02:54:15 AM

Miners agree on enabling segwit and mostly malleability fix IF the Core client also remove the the current block size limit.
They aren't enabling it because segwit leaves the block size limit in the hand of the devs of Core, and miners don't trust them and their promises anymore.

While some pools were willing to accept segwit straight up, this was the compromise position a lot more of them adopted - they would be willing to adopt segwit if the promise of bigger blocks was still kept. The fact that there is actually no firm bigger block hard fork on the definite roadmap is why the miners are still sitting on segwit adoption.

As for what the miners objection to segwit is...

Quote from: hurricandave on February 07, 2017, 02:58:08 AM

Or maybe its because the developers keep trying to find ways to not share any additional revenue with the miners while increasing the data storage the pools will need and pitting conventional pools against SPV-(EMPTY BLOCK)-miners in china for conformations/propagation time.

Not many people have explicitly said out loud what the miners' real objection is and basically the fact is that transaction volume can increase without a proportionate increase in reward for miners. They've invested hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware to secure the system for us on the basis of relatively predictable rewards as compensation and segwit has the potential to dilute this - lightning network will amplify this issue and segwit makes LN easier. The actual magnitude of loss of reward is greatly exaggerated by many, and adding conspiracy theories of redirecting rewards to blockstream are not helping the situation. Additionally, doubling the block size doesn't mean double the transaction fees since there is less competition for fees with more space available.

Segwit IS a technological advancement, but make no mistake, any arguments about complexity being the issue versus the "simplicity" of just increasing the blocksize are a red herring and diverting attention away for why the miners are reluctant to move forwards with it. I've voted for it, but my pool is less than 0.1% of the network, and I believe the network needs a multi-pronged approach to increasing bitcoin's ability to process more transactions, and that transaction volume will more than offset any theoretical loss of reward from segwit. However that's not what the large pools believe. Campaigning by vocal but powerful mining pools is largely preventing them getting on board.