To all Bitcoin Unlimited supporters, I am not against larger blocks. I haven't been following all the detailed developments, so the following might contain some errors.

My thought is reformulate your protocol to have some where between 2 - 8MB block size limit increasing with the Nielsen Law of bandwidth increase (slower exponential growth than Moore's law). Also you must adopt some of the bug fixes in SegWit, such as the new opcode which fixes malleability and enables Lightning Networks.

But do not adopt all the rest of the complexity of SegWit, including do not adopt the ability to softfork version changes as that hands too much power to Core.

Go do that, then maybe you can win. Because likely users will end up choosing to support your protocol because their transactions are not being delayed. But you need to build confidence in your competence to lead.

You can possibly win, if you get competent people working with you.

But you need to rein in these talking heads who are not sufficiently competent, i.e. Wu and Ver. They can talk when they cite competent developers. Those guys need to understand the limits of their role and competencies.

You are apparently competing against banksters who are funding the Core developers (paying their large salaries and incentives). Perhaps that may explain why you ostensibly can't attract the most competent developers?

I am not against what you want in terms of fixing the block size problem. I am just being pragmatic. Find a confidence building and realistic way to win. I don't like being on the losing side.

I highly advise that you all back down from your current ultimatum and reformulate and get the token holders on your side before you proceed. You really need a more capable leader than Wu or Ver. But don't enlist me, because I am too busy on my own "shitcoin" project and I am not interested in investing my effort in Satoshi's PoW. It is good to have those guys on your side, but not as the outspoken de facto leaders, because they have by now proven they are rash, irrational, and somewhat technologically incompetent.