As a Bitcoin fan (and someone who owns a little), I think it's a pretty good article. Some more tidbits of information from my perspective: >The anti-2Xers argue that the NYA should not be binding because it was negotiated behind closed doors, and that a change of this magnitude needs to be more carefully considered before it is adopted. No active developers were part of the NYA. Some in the NYA have said that they a…
They were invited but declined: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/74ow7f/erik_voorhees_o...
> I don't think anyone, including Core, is against that (higher transaction throughput). But on-chain scaling alone can't get you very far, and it has large costs that need to be carefully considered.
Meanwhile, no one has yet provided a believable scenario how miners can get paid in the long term that isn't high transaction volume at low cost.
> The idea that another capacity upgrade should be rushed so soon immediately after Segwit is kind of silly.
This debate is ongoing since almost four years. I wouldn't call that rushed.
> The idea that it should be decided so soon behind closed doors by a few CEOs is sillier.
See above, regarding invitations.
> Let's be clear about the word "update": it means to switch their software to a fork that none of the active community Bitcoin developers contribute to and that none plan on contributing to.
And many others see 2x as the first real sign of the incentive system actually working.