Its cause obesity is shoved down Americans throats all the time . To be fair , that ' s because it is a matter public health similar to the dangers of smoking . It ' s just been taken to a much farther level . <| sep |> The arguments are pretty simpleCore ' s scalability roadmap 1 . No contentious hardforks , because these could split Bitcoin in two 1 . A blocksize increase is highly contentious because everyone needs to be able to run a full node 1 . Promoting changes via hardfork by miners sets a dangerous precedent and gives a very small group of miners undue control over Bitcoin 1 . Onchain scaling is impossible , or at least several magnitudes worse than what is possible through 2 nd layer solutions 1 . Bitcoin needs to be secured through transaction fees eventually , we need to plan for that now . This is Bitcoin ' s biggest existential risk , better proof that Bitcoin is sustainable sooner rather than later . 1 . Bigger blocks centralises mining , and full nodes . 1 . Bigger blocks would could very well lead to Bitcoin becoming Paypal 2 . 0 , something taken over by banks because only they have the necessary datacenters to verify bitcoin blocks . 1 . Bitcoin transactions are very valuable , in terms of security and privacy . It should not be compromised so you can buy a cup of coffee with Bitcoin . 1 . Bitcoin ' s scalability roadmap enables 2 nd layer solutions which offer faster transactions , cheaper and with more privacy with virtually the same security characteristics as onchain transactions . 1 . Softforks are superior to hardforks as these don ' t require old nodes to upgrade . 1 . Bitcoin in its current form isn ' t fast or very usable yet as a currency 1 . Bitcoin in its current form is perfect as a store of value 1 . Transaction fees are still very low 1 . As a settlement system Bitcoin is very fast compared to international banking for instance 1 . If you can change something via contentious Hardfork , you can change anything , even the 21 million cap 1 . Bitcoin ' s development is acceleratingThe pro hardforkbigger blocks side 1 . Killing off Bitcoin as digital cash goes against what Satoshi intended it ' s in the title of the paper ! 1 . Killing off Bitcoin as digital cash kills of usecases and drives away users . 1 . A non free market with threats , attacks , censorship , minority veto ' s will always lead to suboptimal results 1 . Killing this market for low value transactions before people can migrate to 2 nd layer solutions is very contra productive 1 . Promoting the biggest change in Bitcoin ' s history by actively doing nothing is disingenuous . 1 . Keeping the limit and introducing a fee market has neither a design nor any consensus . 1 . SegWit only had consensus amongst Core developers , and was presented as a foregone conclusion . 1 . No contentious hardforks basically means handing veto power to random minorities . 1 . Everyone was OK with SegWit getting released in April and being a 4 Mb upgrade , a very very small minority actually wants smaller blocks . 1 . Hardware and software improves , yet the limit stays the same . This means the arguments for a 1 Mb limit are unsustainable . 1 . SoftForks always incur a cost upon old nodes 1 . SoftForks are always more complicated add technical debt to Bitcoin . 1 . Bitcoin performs worse and worse , yet fees only go up . 1 . Bitcoin is perfectly capable of scaling slowly as softwarehardware improves . 1 . Bitcoin is capable of having lower fees and faster confirmations with the same average blocksize ! 1 . A large number of Bitcoin Core developers getting hired by Blockstream is a conflict of interest . It is a travesty which should have never happened . 1 . Hardforks require consensus , which make them more fair than Softforks . 1 . Economic decisions being made by software developerscryptographers is insane . 1 . SoftForks can also change anything , even the 21 million cap . 1 . Bitcoin ' s development is stagnating . There is probably more .