First, if you're going to repudiate my article, you should be specific. I'm an evidence-driven writer. Point out specifically what is incorrect. I'll be willing to correct any inconsistencies but nothing in your reply refutes anything that I wrote. Now, my turn.
First, WHO in the Bitcoin has been asking for larger blocks other than Roger Ver and Jihan Wu? What the community has been asking for are shorter transaction times and lower fees. There are multiple ways to pay that bill. One way is through block size increases, another equally viable method is through SegWit. The root issue is not block size, it is shorter transactions times and lower fees. Let's keep the discussion focused on that issue.
Second, you mentioned that "Limiting bitcoin blocks to 1MB for this long was NOT what was envisioned by Satoshi and certainly not what people who adopted early on signed on for." Did you know Satoshi personally? I imagine not. In that case, you have no idea what Satoshi envisioned. At risk of blaspheming my religion, it would be the equivalent of me saying that "God envisions ..." I have no idea what God wants. Equally, you have no idea what Satoshi envisioned. What we do KNOW is that businesses and individuals demand shorter transaction times and lower fees. Frankly, I don't think the average person is even aware or cares about the size of the next block. What they care about is their transaction happening quickly and at low cost, THAT is the promise of Bitcoin, Satoshi be damned.
You talk about SegWit adding a lot of technical doubt? It's much less technical doubt after over 1 year of testing than the less than 30 days of testing of the SegWit 2X protocol proposed by BitMain. Moreover, BitMain's proposal doesn't even excite in the spirit of SegWit 2X. The protocol was supposed to implement SegWit FIRST then the block size increase. BitMain implements the block increase first, which hasn't been tested at all, THEN SegWit at some future date. That's code for ... Bullshit.
In terms of the Core Dev Team and new Dev teams, I think that any reasonable Bitcoiner would be open to any reasonable Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP). But as a Bitcoiner who has been in the space for the better part of 4 years, I want to know who the heck is making the code. Interestingly, BitMain has these shit-hot coders but we can't know who they are because they don't want to open themselves up to scrutiny. As I've stated in previous posts, people may not be 100% behind the Bitcoin Core Developers but THEY have skin in the game. They have put themselves out there. I don't want to be a part of a new Fed Reserve System where we don't know who the heck the people are behind the green curtain. No thanks. And not all the Core Devs work at Blockstream so your Core Dev argument about AXA is moot.
On your point about the execution of the UASF ... as the Zen master once said ... we'll see. You think there will be 30% hash power ... I think there will be more. Especially in the shadow of BitMain's arrogance in issuing their Bitcoin ultimate, I think there will be more support for immediate SegWit than you think. 1 August 2017 will be the BID. I can't wait.
Point-by-point, I deconstructed your arguments. The field is yours.