> Your comment is a good example of the double speak and gas lighting I often see in /r/bitcoin
It would be a lot easier if people responded to the actual arguments being made, instead of throwing general accusations at people who're trying to have a rational discussions.
I have responded to your actual arguments in other comments here. I just don't know where to start with this one. Your comment fundamentally misrepresents the position of what you term the "anti core crowd" and so it is hard to have a rational discussion when you can't even acknowledge the position of the other side of the argument.
Miners want a hard fork block size increase. You claiming they don't is gas lighting. Core isn't providing it. Segwit is not a block size increase but it's supporters started branding it as one to better market it. That's the double speak part. It's false to call it a block size increase because it isn't. It isn't even guaranteed to increase transaction throughput which is the larger reason for wanting a block size increase. It actually encourages some types of large transaction by discounting the witness data.
> It isn't even guaranteed to increase transaction throughput which is the larger reason for wanting a block size increase.
It is guaranteed to increase transaction throughput as soon as miners activate it and wallets start producing segwit transactions.
There are currently over 20 wallets that pledged to adding segwit support, including all the most popular software ones and all 6 hardware wallet manufactures (Trezor, Ledger, KeepKey, OpenDime, BitLox and Digitalbitbox). About half of them already have their SegWit implementation ready (before segwit even activated!).
