What miner issue are you thinking of?

There may be three root problems at hand:

• The fact that the Bitcoin fee market works very bad and that Bitcoin tends to stop working as intended when all the blocks are full.
• The scalability issue - well, the Bitcoin Cash proponents claim that the claim that "Bitcoin can't scale" is just a myth, still I'm wary of the proposition of growing the block size into the gigabytes ...
• The 1 MB hard-coded block size limit, and all the stubborn folks that for different reasons veto any changes to this constant. As I see it, back in 2014/2015 everybody in the community more or less agreed it needs to be increased, the question was just how and when.

Of those three issues, the latter one is by far the most problematic. It basically sets a hard limit for how much Bitcoin can be used and how much it can be adopted, and as I see it, it's way too low for any "second-layer"-solution to work. With the high fees and unreliable transactions, Bitcoin has descended from a practical means of payment with real-life use-cases to a Tulip-style speculation object.

I've always said that it would be better to stick together and that the visions are basically the same for all Bitcoiners. Still, there are some folks that absolutely have no will at all to accept any kind of compromise and that also tend to have too much propaganda power at hand. The final attempt on compromise was the SegWit2X-initiative. Perhaps it would have fared better if big-blockers would have supported it instead of spending their energy on the Bitcoin Cash project.

Here is a brief history of the attempts on getting the limit raised (I should probably move it out to a separate post):

• Jeff Garzik proposed to lift the limit already in 2010, claiming the low limit was a "marketing issue". Theymos (correctly) identified the risk of a chain fork as non-upgraded software would still reject big blocks. Satoshi wrote that the time wasn't ripe for an increase, but that it could be done by hard coding the change to apply from some future (in his example, 2011) timestamp or block height, giving people sufficient time to upgrade.
• The first major push to get the limit increased came in 2014/2015 (?) as Gavin Andressen and Mike Hearn proposed to increase the block size limit to 20 MB. After discussions with miners, the limit was decreased to 8 MB. Actually, at that time, any actual block sizes above 1 MB would give big advantages to the biggest Chinese miners/pools. (Lots of improvements were made after this, making block sizes of 8 MB perfectly safe).
• Mike Hearn rightly predicted that the maintainers of the Bitcoin Core github repo, and decided to force through 8 MB + a road map of future upgrades though a hard fork (XT). He got vilified by the Core community, and many found his road map for future upgrades to be far too aggressive. This was one of his biggest mistakes, the other big mistake was underestimating how much the community would balk at such a "takeover attempt".
• The moderation of the r/bitcoin reddit sub started getting out of hand at this point, with any discussions of XT being branded as "out-of-scope altcoin discussion". This was probably the biggest reason why the environment got so divided; if free discussions had been allowed we would most likely agreed on some compromise already in 2015.
• An upgrade to 8 MB block size without any road map for future upgrades were preferred by many of the miners (there was also BIP-100, which actually had more than 50% mining support at some point). It was also firmly rejected.
• Jeff Garzik came with his "2 MB upgrade ASAP" plan (BIP-0102). It was also rejected.
• Gavin attempted to force through a 2 MB upgrade (BIP-0109) by forking of Bitcoin Classic. Gavin was thoroughly vilified after this.
• Peter Wuille presented SegWit, and it was at first branded as a "4X block size increase through a softfork". After being reviewed, it was shown that it represented a rather insignificant capacity increase, nowhere near 4X. Anyway, the hostility towards SegWit came much later.
• In the Hong Kong roundtable consensus an agreement was made on a roadmap with SegWit first and a 2 MB block size increase later. Some people considered the agreement void already days after it was made.
• With BIP-109 being dead, there was the push for "Emergent Consensus" as implemented in Bitcoin Unlimited. It did get around 50% miner consensus at some point.
• The small-blockers started being upset that the miners didn't activate SegWit, the narrative pushed was that high fees and congestion issues was due to the miners depriving the community for the much needed SegWit upgrade. "UASF" was proposed, a highly dangerous "our way or the high way" attempt to force through the SegWit upgrade. Some described it as a sybil attack, setting up a barrier of non-mining nodes to censor miners not supporting SegWit.
• Due to the long-lasting stalemate and with the upcoming UASF disaster getting closer by each day, the SegWit2X compromise was proposed by Jeff Garzik and others. This was basically a revival of the Hong Kong roundtable agreement. Miners and other major industry actors got together and promised to support the SegWit2X initiative and use alternative software in the unlikely event that Core wouldn't support the 2MB upgrade.
• The BitcoinABC project was made as a contingency-plan should the UASF-disaster become real or the SegWit2X-initative fail for other reasons. In a surprise move, it forked off as "Bitcoin Cash" at the 1st of August. Perhaps this was wrong, perhaps we would have been united around a compromise if all the energy put down into the Bitcoin Cash project would have been spent on supporting the Segwit2X compromise.
• The "small blockers" invented the short-form "BCash" and actively started on a rebranding-effort.
• The "small blockers" largely ignored SegWit2X up to the fork date, claimed a "full UASF victory" as SegWit was activated ("I told you it UASF would be a safe upgrade didn't I?"), and as soon as it was locked in they started vilifying Jeff Garzik and the SegWit2X-initiative, declaring that it was a horrible compromise, that Core would not support it, and even that it was an "obvious corporate takeover". In the early August it seemed obvious that Core and its supporters would find themselves voluntarily marooned on a desolated island where virtually no on-chain-transactions would go through after the 2X hardfork.
• Once again, the vilification tactics mixed with the "our way or the high way"-approach seems to have gone rather well. Things got very toxic, industry actors that had promised to support SegWit2X was forced to distance themselves from the project. Even the software project btc1 also was a failure (despite being a fairly simple project), mostly due to lack of resources. What should have been a nearly-smooth network upgrade got very controversial, and as the major exchanges declared they would continue using the "Bitcoin"-brand on the 1X-chain right after the fork, a 2X-upgrade would be very messy. In the end, the initiative was dropped.

After the SegWit2X-initiative was dropped, the propaganda efforts from the small-blockers have mostly been targeting "BCash".

To me, it seems fairly obvious that Bitcoin has failed. Rather than supporting it, we should try to agree on what crypto currency hold the most potential as a successor leading crypto currency and unite on it. I'm not at all sure Bitcoin Cash is the right solution.