LAST 1000 BLOCKS :
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 373 ( 37.3% )
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 2 ( 0.2% )
SegWit blocks: 275 ( 27.5% )
Conclusion: The majority of miners support bigger blockshttps://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
Conclusion: The majority of bitcoin holders supports bigger blocksCore needs to either increase the block size, or miners (acting in their own economic interest) will start using an alternative client, and they'll become irrelevant. Its really that simple
Not at all. Your argument is that
the majority of miners support bigger blocks, but a better phrase would be that
a majority of the mining hashrate supports bigger blocks. The mining hashrate is represented by a small group of pools, and since miners typically gravitate towards their own interests they will go to whichever pool they prefer rather than, necessarily, to the one which supports a specific scaling solution as many don't care.
In fact, SegWit currently has
a marginal lead over BU due to F2Pool beginning to signal for it. What matters is how much hashrate is favouring each side, not how many blocks have been mined for each (as the number of blocks is subject to variation so you have to measure it over a longer timespan) and with the addition of F2Pool, the hashrate currently is supporting SegWit by a small margin.
The miners don't even represent the community either. No one can reasonably claim that the miners' interests are always that of the community and a reason for supporting a cause should never be "other people support it so I do too". It should be because the system holds weight as an idea and in code.