The thing you have to understand about the ardent small-blockers is that they really genuinely believe they are protecting Bitcoin from a very real existential threat. If Bitcoin's security properties get diminished, there's no going back, no undoes or fixing the problem. It is a permanent change that irreparably weakens Bitcoin. What you view as overly zealous conservatism they view as appropriate caution given the risks involved. Now, I happen to think even given the risks that they are overly conservative, and I support a hard fork blocksize increase... but I don't begrudge them for sticking to their guns when from their point of view, they are defending Bitcoin's very existence from what they perceive as a very real threat that might destroy Bitcoin.
Thank you for your heartwarming comment.
I thought so, and I appreciated their opinion even when I believed it was wrong...Until one day I realized that they had played too dirty and too reckless.
Satoshi predicted that there would be only mining farms that mine BTC, Satoshi predicted there would be only specialists who run nodes and finally data centers. And Satoshi was okay with it, so did every Bitcoiner including Theymos back then. We followed Satoshi's vision and walked here. Why suddenly all these predictions are dismissed as "centralization"?
If there is any constitution, that shall be Satoshi's vision and Bitcoin Paper. Why dismissing the whole constitution without any consensus? Why forcing the community by censorship and propaganda? If they have shown any sincerity or been honest, I would not have begrudged them even if I disagreed with them. But what I saw were only self-contrary lies and indifference.
Anyway, I hope I am wrong. I hope one day Blockstream, current Core and Theymos prove us that we are all wrong and they are the ones who really want Bitcoin to succeed. But TBH, I don't believe it at all.