None ever has. The only counter "arguments" fall in two classes:
- "he must be a FUDDER of the other camp", "he must have an agenda" or something similar
- he's wrong, because he's wrong. (include in this, too: others already said he was wrong)
No technical taking apart of any aspect has ever been presented that wasn't obviously logically wrong in itself, like "look how well the UASF menace worked".
You must be reading another thread. In this one you've been shown to be wrong about the fundamentals of how Bitcoin works and unaware of the principle of analogies.