Crypto News & ICO Reviews
First the fact: bitcoins have a problem about the size of the blocks. Then let's do some considerations. The problem is a minor technical problem considering how successful was the original idea of Satoshi Nakamoto. The level of the problem is comparable (with the right proportion) to the problem of addresses in the TCP/IP before IPv6. Nobody ever thought to dismiss IPv4. Nobody every thought to fork to a new Internet to solve the addresses space.
But let's for a second consider the block size a big problem, even in this case the discussion around the solution is ridiculous. There are two possible solutions: one try to modify the things keeping a backward compatibility (SegWit) the other proposal is to change the rules of the blockchain creating a new chain that solves the problem. These two ideas are presented as one against the other but this is completely false! The hard fork is a drastic solution to a minor problem, but still a possible solution. Well, great, let's then be ready for that solution, but before why we shouldn't try the smooth possibility? There is no logic in the universe that prevents to enable the SegWit. From a technical point of view this is the most rational approach. It is totally risk less: if SegWit works, the hard fork is not required and the chain will continue its work. If it doesn't work, the hard fork will be embraced by everyone killing the old chain and promoting the new as the only viable solution to solve the block size problem.
To try to force today the hard fork is pure politics. It is to impose a control on the bitcoin development and to give more power to the miners. So my conclusion is that the block size is a small problem used by BU as an excuse to take the control of the blockchain development technology over the Bitcoin Core.