The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
They may have been okay with the idea of mostly SPV users and vastly fewer full nodes. I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus. I also think a lot of people legitimately don't understand Bitcoin's economic design and think infinite near-zero fees are actually viable.
It's possible they had a deliberate agenda to centralize the network, but I don't think we'll ever find out either way. If they did, at least we know they failed.
strangely those wanting smll blocks and LN want people to lock funds into factories and let the factories be the fullnodes(multinetwork masternode servers) while millions of users just use auto-piloted phone apps that trust that the servers are not going to mess around
after all whos going to carry around their PC to buy coffee on LN
also
those that want bitcoin network scaling dont want gigabytes by midnight. they just want some actual movement in the scaling to get passed the implied 600k tx limit a day known about since 2010
i really find is amusing at the same time as facepalming that small blockers still think the options are only server farms of LN hubs or server farms of gigabyte bitcoin blocks... and then they go on to presume that server farms of LN hubs are the solution. and that people should avoid using bitcoins blockchain