Now you're seriously offtopic in my opinion (and since this is my thread my opinion gets final word). Complain all you like about the core code (I'm not a fan of its performance either), but do it elsewhere please. Let's stick to segwit2x discussions or I'll start deleting posts.
I hope you'll not delete my post. The reason why technical arguments are important in a political discussion is that they are the simplest way to do distinguish between empty politicking and true long-term planing. Even non-technical people can understand those arguments.
Even then I still don't get why they are stuck with LevelDB, RocksDB is clearly far superior.
This is the type of gang-warfare argumentation: LevelDB-s contra RocksDB-s.
It is my understanding that -ck was involved in the Linux kernel development. Long time ago Linux was mired in the internecine warfare of various gangs of fanboi-s for the various file systems. The strategic choice wasn't to choose one over the other, it was to implement an abstraction layer for
any file system underneath:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_file_system . That's because there isn't a single universal best file system, there are however best filesystems for various usage scenarios.
The same approach is the correct one for any Bitcoin client implementation: there is a need to implement an abstraction layer(s) for the blockchain and transaction storage. And remember: mempool is also a database, although rather trivial.
Some supporters of segwit2x (and other proposal) make political arguments about decentralization of Bitcoin client development. It could be fairly easy to see if they really support decentralization by asking them about their stance about abstracting the storage engines used by the Bitcoin clients.
The rest of the technical arguments will be in a parallel thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2006262.0 .