Nobody Can Have Benefit From a Big Pump

[concept2]

I am not a good investor or a good trader so I dont have any ideaa about this case. But I do think that they have to do something for a reason. The big pump is created in order to bring more and more money to the whales. If it does not bring any profit, why do they do that?

[1714712836]

1714712836

[1714712836]

1714712836

[1714712836]

1714712836

[deisik]

If it is so obvious (which I totally agree with), why is it not as obvious to you that there is no "long term" for miners in that very case (as opposed to short term)? As I've already said it a few times, their days are numbered unless they can successfully prolong the current Core versus Unlimited showdown as long as possible or even indefinitely (note that this is equally applicable to miners supporting SW/LN as well as their opponents supporting BU). Regarding mining monopoly, I don't see how this monopoly excludes securing the network from hacks (which seems to be your point). In other words, monopoly doesn't mean that whoever participates in it refuses to do their job (though this still doesn't completely eliminate such a possibility either)

It is primarily about requesting too much for doing the job (due to lack of competition)

It seems that we don't disagree on what's happening, more the reasons why.

Miners aren't "requesting high fees". People are paying progressively higher fees to get their transactions confirmed. Have you looked at the mempool in the last week? It has broken new size records: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=60days  Today it's at new ATH, over 110MB. That means the blocks are full, and hundreds of thousands of transactions are unconfirmed, likely the sub-$1 fee transactions and the complicated transactions (lots of inputs).  The reason for that is that the blocks are full. Miners could easily clear that mempool (and would love to) if the blocks were a mere 2MB. The blocks could've been made 2MB without issue 3 years ago with a one-line code change and a quick consensus hard fork (not as scary as Blockstream would have you believe), and still could be.

Ergo, fees are high because the network is over capacity. The network is over capacity due to Blockstream's monopoly on development and deliberate blockage of many proposals to increase the blocksize. Blockstream has explicitly stated that Bitcoin won't scale past 1MB blocks and Segwit with Lightning is the only way forward. However, due to the market's rejection of their FUD, Blockstream's monopoly on development has ended, with Unlimited being a candidate to replace them. As we all know, Unlimited development is not great, but another challenger will arise soon. Segwit is dead in the water with Litecoin dumping and Lightning not working yet. Time is not on Blockstream's side - they no longer have credibility as the de facto developers of the bitcoin software. If they continue to ignore market sentiment about Segwit, eventually there will be a  viable code fork of version 0.12 that works and has 2 or 4 MB blocks. Alternately, the blocksize will remain 1MB forever and bitcoin will continually lose market share until and altcoin surpasses it. 

It could be argued that miners have a sort of monopoly. But then, when did they not have this monopoly?

Obviously, when there were a lot more independent miners

Right now we have just a dozen of miners, which makes a perfect case for a monopoly (strictly speaking, oligopoly, but this is inconsequential here). Well, these miners are in fact mining pools backed up by a few mining farms, so it is still essentially the same ("six of one and half a dozen of the other"). Regarding miners demanding higher fees, they can't do that directly, of course, but this doesn't mean that they won't do anything which would make the users pay more rather than less. Honestly, it would be strange if they didn't search for ways to raise the fees. There are no altruists if you have literally millions of dollars invested in mining equipment. That should be as clear as day

[Harlot]

My Wallet App allows my to convert my Bitcoin to Fiat at anytime of the day, well not actually it only process transactions on weekdays until 10 am, if not it willl be transferred to the next business day. Also it will still keep the prices of the exchange rate during the transaction of the conversion. My wallet also updates their exchange rate in real time making is possible to benefit on a big pump of Bitcoin's price. But seeing the price of Butcoin right now its more than a big pump as its price growth is more than 2 weeks now.

[carlisle1]

If Bitcoin price pumps from $1300 to $3000 in few hours, nobody would make profit from it, because the exchanges wouldn't allow you to sell your Bitcoins and make the fast profit, it would bring a big loss for exchange sites.

Do you agree with this?

well we can not be sure if this will surely happen after reaching value, but for some reasons it can be possible that some exchanges would be having a trouble with their withdrawal systems but they are not going to disallow you to sell your bitcoins that's savage man you don't have to worry about it if your bitcoins are kept trusted and reliable exchange .

[Kray]

If Bitcoin price pumps from $1300 to $3000 in few hours, nobody would make profit from it, because the exchanges wouldn't allow you to sell your Bitcoins and make the fast profit, it would bring a big loss for exchange sites.

Do you agree with this?

How you know that exchange wont allow us to sell our bitcoin? I think trusty and big exchange will allow us to sell our btc

[classicsucks]

If it is so obvious (which I totally agree with), why is it not as obvious to you that there is no "long term" for miners in that very case (as opposed to short term)? As I've already said it a few times, their days are numbered unless they can successfully prolong the current Core versus Unlimited showdown as long as possible or even indefinitely (note that this is equally applicable to miners supporting SW/LN as well as their opponents supporting BU). Regarding mining monopoly, I don't see how this monopoly excludes securing the network from hacks (which seems to be your point). In other words, monopoly doesn't mean that whoever participates in it refuses to do their job (though this still doesn't completely eliminate such a possibility either)

It is primarily about requesting too much for doing the job (due to lack of competition)

It seems that we don't disagree on what's happening, more the reasons why.

Miners aren't "requesting high fees". People are paying progressively higher fees to get their transactions confirmed. Have you looked at the mempool in the last week? It has broken new size records: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=60days  Today it's at new ATH, over 110MB. That means the blocks are full, and hundreds of thousands of transactions are unconfirmed, likely the sub-$1 fee transactions and the complicated transactions (lots of inputs).  The reason for that is that the blocks are full. Miners could easily clear that mempool (and would love to) if the blocks were a mere 2MB. The blocks could've been made 2MB without issue 3 years ago with a one-line code change and a quick consensus hard fork (not as scary as Blockstream would have you believe), and still could be.

Ergo, fees are high because the network is over capacity. The network is over capacity due to Blockstream's monopoly on development and deliberate blockage of many proposals to increase the blocksize. Blockstream has explicitly stated that Bitcoin won't scale past 1MB blocks and Segwit with Lightning is the only way forward. However, due to the market's rejection of their FUD, Blockstream's monopoly on development has ended, with Unlimited being a candidate to replace them. As we all know, Unlimited development is not great, but another challenger will arise soon. Segwit is dead in the water with Litecoin dumping and Lightning not working yet. Time is not on Blockstream's side - they no longer have credibility as the de facto developers of the bitcoin software. If they continue to ignore market sentiment about Segwit, eventually there will be a  viable code fork of version 0.12 that works and has 2 or 4 MB blocks. Alternately, the blocksize will remain 1MB forever and bitcoin will continually lose market share until and altcoin surpasses it. 

It could be argued that miners have a sort of monopoly. But then, when did they not have this monopoly?

(miners) won't do anything which would make the users pay more rather than less. Honestly, it would be strange if they didn't search for ways to raise the fees. There are no altruists if you have literally millions of dollars invested in mining equipment. That should be as clear as day

Again - you are repeating a common fallacy on these forums. Miners are smart enough to know that if fees approach $5 per transaction they'll be cost-prohibitive, and will result in the death of bitcoin. They'd be much more profitable and much happier with larger blocks, as they've screamed a million times, seemingly to deaf ears. Sure, miners would like to increase fees slowly over the next twenty years as the block reward decreases. But why would they want fees to increase when, simultaneously, unconfirmed transactions skyrocket and more and more people flee bitcoin for another crypto? This can only be bad.

[deisik]

If it is so obvious (which I totally agree with), why is it not as obvious to you that there is no "long term" for miners in that very case (as opposed to short term)? As I've already said it a few times, their days are numbered unless they can successfully prolong the current Core versus Unlimited showdown as long as possible or even indefinitely (note that this is equally applicable to miners supporting SW/LN as well as their opponents supporting BU). Regarding mining monopoly, I don't see how this monopoly excludes securing the network from hacks (which seems to be your point). In other words, monopoly doesn't mean that whoever participates in it refuses to do their job (though this still doesn't completely eliminate such a possibility either)

It is primarily about requesting too much for doing the job (due to lack of competition)

It seems that we don't disagree on what's happening, more the reasons why.

Miners aren't "requesting high fees". People are paying progressively higher fees to get their transactions confirmed. Have you looked at the mempool in the last week? It has broken new size records: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=60days  Today it's at new ATH, over 110MB. That means the blocks are full, and hundreds of thousands of transactions are unconfirmed, likely the sub-$1 fee transactions and the complicated transactions (lots of inputs).  The reason for that is that the blocks are full. Miners could easily clear that mempool (and would love to) if the blocks were a mere 2MB. The blocks could've been made 2MB without issue 3 years ago with a one-line code change and a quick consensus hard fork (not as scary as Blockstream would have you believe), and still could be.

Ergo, fees are high because the network is over capacity. The network is over capacity due to Blockstream's monopoly on development and deliberate blockage of many proposals to increase the blocksize. Blockstream has explicitly stated that Bitcoin won't scale past 1MB blocks and Segwit with Lightning is the only way forward. However, due to the market's rejection of their FUD, Blockstream's monopoly on development has ended, with Unlimited being a candidate to replace them. As we all know, Unlimited development is not great, but another challenger will arise soon. Segwit is dead in the water with Litecoin dumping and Lightning not working yet. Time is not on Blockstream's side - they no longer have credibility as the de facto developers of the bitcoin software. If they continue to ignore market sentiment about Segwit, eventually there will be a  viable code fork of version 0.12 that works and has 2 or 4 MB blocks. Alternately, the blocksize will remain 1MB forever and bitcoin will continually lose market share until and altcoin surpasses it. 

It could be argued that miners have a sort of monopoly. But then, when did they not have this monopoly?

(miners) won't do anything which would make the users pay more rather than less. Honestly, it would be strange if they didn't search for ways to raise the fees. There are no altruists if you have literally millions of dollars invested in mining equipment. That should be as clear as day

Again - you are repeating a common fallacy on these forums. Miners are smart enough to know that if fees approach $5 per transaction they'll be cost-prohibitive, and will result in the death of bitcoin. They'd be much more profitable and much happier with larger blocks, as they've screamed a million times, seemingly to deaf ears. Sure, miners would like to increase fees slowly over the next twenty years as the block reward decreases. But why would they want fees to increase when, simultaneously, unconfirmed transactions skyrocket and more and more people flee bitcoin for another crypto? This can only be bad

These are not deaf ears, these are your eyes which are shortsited

Though you obviously deem otherwise since "miners are smart enough to know". They are certainly smarter than you think. They know that there's no tomorrow for them, that's why they don't care about the future as such and their future profits (since there'll be none). It is the end of the game for them. And it has been explained many times as well across the forum. What is the purpose of larger blocks (that "they've screamed a million times" about) if they deliberately leave blocks empty today? You have to cut the crap and face the facts

[micher143]

If Bitcoin price pumps from $1300 to $3000 in few hours, nobody would make profit from it, because the exchanges wouldn't allow you to sell your Bitcoins and make the fast profit, it would bring a big loss for exchange sites.

Do you agree with this?

I don't think so. The only one who will benefit from a big pump is the one who bought a lot of bitcoin when its price is low. Bitcoin holders can earn a high profit from increasing price. There's a possibility that their money could be double or even triple.

[audaciousbeing]

If Bitcoin price pumps from $1300 to $3000 in few hours, nobody would make profit from it, because the exchanges wouldn't allow you to sell your Bitcoins and make the fast profit, it would bring a big loss for exchange sites.

Do you agree with this?

I agree with you but the issue is the exchange site are equally protecting themselves even though they should rather not do that. The reason for my position is that part of what makes an exchange popular is liquidity in that when I want to sell, I should be able to do so within limited time or else I won't trust them but not all this time are buyers at all time are available so they buy before then selling to who ever makes an order. But what will happen to them the moment the price increases at that rate without anybody to buy at the moment and they allow you sell which meas they owe you and if they cannot redeem it, the next is scam accusation thread which might damage their reputation. With that, what they do is just study what happen next before just jumping here and there and we all know the volatility nature of price.

[Hypnosis00]

Can you show us some proof that we cannot get benefits from a big pump? A lot of people now investing and trading because they are all waiting for the big pumps because that is how they can earn money then if there will no big pump then there will no benefits.

[phr0stbyt3]

I don't think anything like that can actually happen because a investor has to invest double the market cap to double the current price.
And also we have not seen anything like this in the past so there's a chance exchanges may not allow that or maybe they may even allow. It's better if we wait and notice what happens next.

[rekinthis]

If it is so obvious (which I totally agree with), why is it not as obvious to you that there is no "long term" for miners in that very case (as opposed to short term)? As I've already said it a few times, their days are numbered unless they can successfully prolong the current Core versus Unlimited showdown as long as possible or even indefinitely (note that this is equally applicable to miners supporting SW/LN as well as their opponents supporting BU). Regarding mining monopoly, I don't see how this monopoly excludes securing the network from hacks (which seems to be your point). In other words, monopoly doesn't mean that whoever participates in it refuses to do their job (though this still doesn't completely eliminate such a possibility either)

It is primarily about requesting too much for doing the job (due to lack of competition)

It seems that we don't disagree on what's happening, more the reasons why.

Miners aren't "requesting high fees". People are paying progressively higher fees to get their transactions confirmed. Have you looked at the mempool in the last week? It has broken new size records: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=60days  Today it's at new ATH, over 110MB. That means the blocks are full, and hundreds of thousands of transactions are unconfirmed, likely the sub-$1 fee transactions and the complicated transactions (lots of inputs).  The reason for that is that the blocks are full. Miners could easily clear that mempool (and would love to) if the blocks were a mere 2MB. The blocks could've been made 2MB without issue 3 years ago with a one-line code change and a quick consensus hard fork (not as scary as Blockstream would have you believe), and still could be.

Ergo, fees are high because the network is over capacity. The network is over capacity due to Blockstream's monopoly on development and deliberate blockage of many proposals to increase the blocksize. Blockstream has explicitly stated that Bitcoin won't scale past 1MB blocks and Segwit with Lightning is the only way forward. However, due to the market's rejection of their FUD, Blockstream's monopoly on development has ended, with Unlimited being a candidate to replace them. As we all know, Unlimited development is not great, but another challenger will arise soon. Segwit is dead in the water with Litecoin dumping and Lightning not working yet. Time is not on Blockstream's side - they no longer have credibility as the de facto developers of the bitcoin software. If they continue to ignore market sentiment about Segwit, eventually there will be a  viable code fork of version 0.12 that works and has 2 or 4 MB blocks. Alternately, the blocksize will remain 1MB forever and bitcoin will continually lose market share until and altcoin surpasses it. 

It could be argued that miners have a sort of monopoly. But then, when did they not have this monopoly?

Obviously, when there were a lot more independent miners

Right now we have just a dozen of miners, which makes a perfect case for a monopoly (strictly speaking, oligopoly, but this is inconsequential here). Well, these miners are in fact mining pools backed up by a few mining farms, so it is still essentially the same ("six of one and half a dozen of the other"). Regarding miners demanding higher fees, they can't do that directly, of course, but this doesn't mean that they won't do anything which would make the users pay more rather than less. Honestly, it would be strange if they didn't search for ways to raise the fees. There are no altruists if you have literally millions of dollars invested in mining equipment. That should be as clear as day

how can you say that there are no altruists in this world? Just look at satoshi, he could be a millionaire but he didn't even touch the bitcoins he mined... And of course miners are looking for the higher fees, who wouldn't, though if we implement segwit that would mean that all transactions can be made without the help of the miners, thus when rewards will get cut significantly in a few decades for mining won't that mean that it will not be profitable to mine blocks? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be good for bitcoins. That's why I am for BU at the moment, miners will keep on getting their rewards for taking the transactions and people will not have to pay the massive fees that they do now. Like really at this moment it is impossible to use bitcoins just because of the fees.

[kalodu]

Can you show us some proof that we cannot get benefits from a big pump? A lot of people now investing and trading because they are all waiting for the big pumps because that is how they can earn money then if there will no big pump then there will no benefits.

Yeah OP was stupid to say that, volatility is bad but of course we all benefit from the pumps as long as we hold our bitcoins.

how can you say that there are no altruists in this world? Just look at satoshi, he could be a millionaire but he didn't even touch the bitcoins he mined...

If satoshi were really an altruist he would have anonymously donated those bitcoins to a good cause. He is either dead, lost his private keys or is waiting for a higher price.

[SHAWN-MIDWAYS]

If Bitcoin price pumps from $1300 to $3000 in few hours, nobody would make profit from it, because the exchanges wouldn't allow you to sell your Bitcoins and make the fast profit, it would bring a big loss for exchange sites.

Do you agree with this?

i don't not agree with op here because if there is a huge pump as described. it means value of  bitcoins will also increase and everyone having some
bitcoins at that particular time we call it  profit.

I don't think so. The only one who will benefit from a big pump is the one who bought a lot of bitcoin when its price is low. Bitcoin holders can earn a high profit from increasing price. There's a possibility that their money could be double or even triple.

most likely the early investors will cash in big on such a price pump and for the exchange they might lose on the altcoin business as we get to but more for a small price.

[izanagi narukami]

If I'm put my sales Order , my bitcoin will sold on my preferred value ( althought market value still not reach my target yet )
So trader still able to make profit

Even if exchanger can't make profit but their profit on the past still can't race with current loss

[deisik]

Obviously, when there were a lot more independent miners

Right now we have just a dozen of miners, which makes a perfect case for a monopoly (strictly speaking, oligopoly, but this is inconsequential here). Well, these miners are in fact mining pools backed up by a few mining farms, so it is still essentially the same ("six of one and half a dozen of the other"). Regarding miners demanding higher fees, they can't do that directly, of course, but this doesn't mean that they won't do anything which would make the users pay more rather than less. Honestly, it would be strange if they didn't search for ways to raise the fees. There are no altruists if you have literally millions of dollars invested in mining equipment. That should be as clear as day

how can you say that there are no altruists in this world? Just look at satoshi, he could be a millionaire but he didn't even touch the bitcoins he mined... And of course miners are looking for the higher fees, who wouldn't, though if we implement segwit that would mean that all transactions can be made without the help of the miners, thus when rewards will get cut significantly in a few decades for mining won't that mean that it will not be profitable to mine blocks? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be good for bitcoins. That's why I am for BU at the moment, miners will keep on getting their rewards for taking the transactions and people will not have to pay the massive fees that they do now. Like really at this moment it is impossible to use bitcoins just because of the fees.

And what Satoshi did so that we could consider him as an altruist?

We don't even know whether he is still alive or not, so that's a moot point really. Apart from that, I didn't say that there are no altruists in this world, but even if there are we should be very careful in our judgment about them since "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I said that there are no altruists if you have millions of dollars invested into something, at least, as long as we remain rational. But irrational people cannot be considered as either altruists or egoists since any of these assumes conscious choice which irrational people cannot make by definition

[classicsucks]

Again - you are repeating a common fallacy on these forums. Miners are smart enough to know that if fees approach $5 per transaction they'll be cost-prohibitive, and will result in the death of bitcoin. They'd be much more profitable and much happier with larger blocks, as they've screamed a million times, seemingly to deaf ears. Sure, miners would like to increase fees slowly over the next twenty years as the block reward decreases. But why would they want fees to increase when, simultaneously, unconfirmed transactions skyrocket and more and more people flee bitcoin for another crypto? This can only be bad

These are not deaf ears, these are your eyes which are shortsited

Though you obviously deem otherwise since "miners are smart enough to know". They are certainly smarter than you think. They know that there's no tomorrow for them, that's why they don't care about the future as such and their future profits (since there'll be none). It is the end of the game for them. And it has been explained many times as well across the forum. What is the purpose of larger blocks (that "they've screamed a million times" about) if they deliberately leave blocks empty today? You have to cut the crap and face the facts

I don't think you understand the situation.

For miners, the purpose of larger blocks is to process more transactions, make more fees, and scale the bitcoin network to keep up with demand from all over the world. Duh. Which is also the purpose of larger blocks for free thinkers on this forum. That doesn't imply support for miners, it's just the logical way forward based on Satoshi's vision, and in concert with the incentives he envisioned when he create Bitcoin.

Now you're arguing that there is "no tomorrow" for miners (are you a UASF supporter)? LOL, if anything, there is "no tomorrow" for Core devs and their band of yabbering minions. The Bitcoin network can chug along happily for the next 100 years without a single line of new code getting written. It just can't scale to reach the number of people who want to use it. Therefore, people will dutifully move on to the next coin if nothing changes, as they are doing now.

[deisik]

Again - you are repeating a common fallacy on these forums. Miners are smart enough to know that if fees approach $5 per transaction they'll be cost-prohibitive, and will result in the death of bitcoin. They'd be much more profitable and much happier with larger blocks, as they've screamed a million times, seemingly to deaf ears. Sure, miners would like to increase fees slowly over the next twenty years as the block reward decreases. But why would they want fees to increase when, simultaneously, unconfirmed transactions skyrocket and more and more people flee bitcoin for another crypto? This can only be bad

These are not deaf ears, these are your eyes which are shortsited

Though you obviously deem otherwise since "miners are smart enough to know". They are certainly smarter than you think. They know that there's no tomorrow for them, that's why they don't care about the future as such and their future profits (since there'll be none). It is the end of the game for them. And it has been explained many times as well across the forum. What is the purpose of larger blocks (that "they've screamed a million times" about) if they deliberately leave blocks empty today? You have to cut the crap and face the facts

I don't think you understand the situation.

For miners, the purpose of larger blocks is to process more transactions, make more fees, and scale the bitcoin network to keep up with demand from all over the world. Duh. Which is also the purpose of larger blocks for free thinkers on this forum. That doesn't imply support for miners, it's just the logical way forward based on Satoshi's vision, and in concert with the incentives he envisioned when he create Bitcoin

I'm more inclined to think that it is you who fails to see the forest for the trees

Miners can't make more fees with larger blocks since the larger blocks won't let them extort higher fees by not confirming transactions with smaller blocks, though with larger blocks such extortion would be an open outrage (as if it is not already). This is not a rocket science, after all, and it is hard to fail to see that, so there is no reason to think they are actually in favor of bigger blocks. They may claim whatever they want (and you may choose to believe in that), but their true objective is to make current disputes even more heated, so that the present situation would drag on for longer (preferably, forever)

Now you're arguing that there is "no tomorrow" for miners (are you a UASF supporter)? LOL, if anything, there is "no tomorrow" for Core devs and their band of yabbering minions. The Bitcoin network can chug along happily for the next 100 years without a single line of new code getting written. It just can't scale to reach the number of people who want to use it. Therefore, people will dutifully move on to the next coin if nothing changes, as they are doing now

I'm curious if you understand how this piece (especially, the emphasized part) fundamentally contradicts the first section ("process more transactions" and "make more fees")

[classicsucks]

Miners can't make more fees with larger blocks since the larger blocks won't let them extort higher fees by not confirming transactions with smaller blocks, though with larger blocks such extortion would be an open outrage (as if it is not already). This is not a rocket science, after all, and it is hard to fail to see that, so there is no reason to think they are actually in favor of bigger blocks. They may claim whatever they want (and you may choose to believe in that), but their true objective is to make current disputes even more heated, so that the present situation would drag on for longer (preferably, forever)

You're just digging yourself deeper into an illogical argument. Why on earth would the miners lie about wanting bigger blocks and secretly desire smaller blocks? We've already established that the too-small blocksize is limiting their profits, alienating the user base due to high fees and slow/failed confirmations, and running bitcoin into the ground at a key moment of explosive growth. Who has the most skin in the game here? Miners. They've spent millions on hardware and they intend to profit. Keeping the bitcoin network running and keeping a happy face on bitcoin's public persona is very important to them. They're not extorting anyone. They rejected Core's Segwit proposal and that's their right.

Now you're arguing that there is "no tomorrow" for miners (are you a UASF supporter)? LOL, if anything, there is "no tomorrow" for Core devs and their band of yabbering minions. The Bitcoin network can chug along happily for the next 100 years without a single line of new code getting written. It just can't scale to reach the number of people who want to use it. Therefore, people will dutifully move on to the next coin if nothing changes, as they are doing now

I'm curious if you understand how this piece (especially, the emphasized part) fundamentally contradicts the first section ("process more transactions" and "make more fees")
[/quote]

Again, the network could theoretically continue to function at the current volume and price for 100 years without any changes. But it would halt the rapid volume and utility growth, which would move to another crypto. No contradiction. Now perhaps you could explain to me why the Core devs and their flawed corporate vision for bitcoin are so important? And why another dev team can't port the 0.14 changes to 0.12, raise the blocksize to 2MB, and a majority of nodes and miners compile and run that code?

[deisik]

Miners can't make more fees with larger blocks since the larger blocks won't let them extort higher fees by not confirming transactions with smaller blocks, though with larger blocks such extortion would be an open outrage (as if it is not already). This is not a rocket science, after all, and it is hard to fail to see that, so there is no reason to think they are actually in favor of bigger blocks. They may claim whatever they want (and you may choose to believe in that), but their true objective is to make current disputes even more heated, so that the present situation would drag on for longer (preferably, forever)

You're just digging yourself deeper into an illogical argument. Why on earth would the miners lie about wanting bigger blocks and secretly desire smaller blocks? We've already established that the too-small blocksize is limiting their profits, alienating the user base due to high fees and slow/failed confirmations, and running bitcoin into the ground at a key moment of explosive growth. Who has the most skin in the game here? Miners. They've spent millions on hardware and they intend to profit. Keeping the bitcoin network running and keeping a happy face on bitcoin's public persona is very important to them. They're not extorting anyone. They rejected Core's Segwit proposal and that's their right

Who established that?

You may have established but I didn't say anything to that tune or which could be (mis)interpreted in that way. Bigger blocks in no way guarantee miners higher profits, even if they actually would include more transactions (but we are not there yet, anyway). I'm absolutely confident in my point, and I can easily defend it (as long as you remain honest, of course). They desire neither bigger blocks nor smaller blocks, they desire more profits (which is understandable, no altruists here), and any change would likely mean lesser profits for them. With bigger blocks their roguishness will be more evident at that (if they continue to pile up transactions with half empty blocks). In this way, they want the current debates and clashes to go on indefinitely (which I already said) since this allows them to preserve the current status quo (i.e. escalating fee race)