But I have stated what happens, which it is always devolves to majority-collusion.
My point is that this is outcome is not affected by the cap on maxblocksize.
Might be true. I've been pondering that today. If BU can successfully attack the token holders, then that should be proof that even small 1MB blocks don't stop mining cartelization/centralization.
We don't think of it as an attack, but as an upgrade. I haven't participated in mining in years, yet I am convinced that BU delivers more value to me than does the core plan.
So if BU was sincere, they could demonstrate it by including the necessary fixes to enable LN in their planned HF.
Again, BU is not resistant to a malleability fix (at least as far as I discern). As recent events display however, we have a dev bandwidth issue. We must prioritize the things we wish to accomplish. Abolition of this stupid centrally-planned production quota is the most pressing problem faced by Bitcoin. So we are focusing upon that. Longer term, we would like to enable LN, but not with the current built-in anticompetitive disincentive for on-chain transactions (i.e., the aforementioned maxblocksize limit).
(And LN is still possible without a malleability fix, but that is kind of an aside, in that it is acknowledged that such is suboptimal).