Based on what? Can you name a single dev that expresses support for bigger blocks that hasn't been systematically ridiculed and excluded from Bitcoin Core development by the small block crowd? It isn't even possible to get an accurate perception of Bitcoin Unlimited support from reading the traditional Bitcoin discussion forums like /r/bitcoin because there is ZERO tolerance for discussion of bigger blocks unless it in a negative context.
That's a false premise. There is a block size increase when segwit activates. The debate is mostly if we should have a hard fork as well as (or even instead of) a soft fork.
I think most developers are rightly scared of a hard fork, especially as we've seen what happened to Etherium lately. There was double spending as every node was not perfectly aligned with this. And then, contrary to expectations, the old chain survived. "Would you like to pay with Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin United?" That's not what anyone wants.
The ETH / ETC situation was only possible because ETH has a much smaller block time than Bitcoin and the difficulty re-target happens every block instead of every 2016 blocks. The upshot for Bitcoin is that any chain with a minority of hashing power will die off.
Dev's are just FUDing to keep control and scare people.
No, actually, it's not safe to vote for a fork until a large percentage of nodes are on board. Miners are doing their job and waiting for the community first. It took me 4 months to upgrade my nodes because I'm not really "in the business" like I used to be. Probably a lot of other people are just slow too.
The censorship isn't just in /r/bitcoin it also happens on the dev mailing list, on the bitcoin.org website, and on the BitcoinTalk forum. BitcoinTalk, /r/bitcoin, and bitcoin.org are controlled by the same person.
I'm pretty sure this was a sarcastic shitcomment. People who have a basic idea of how finance works understand that decentralized financial products lead to market making.
