Well I think that's what he IS actually arguing and he's not the only one; that bitcoin is a miner controlled system.
Which is what I've observed to be the belief of BU proponents. Do they not understand that as such, Bitcoin would be a pretty worthless system?
Their disconnect, IMO, is that they ignore the issues of "mining centralization"
and "ledger centralization" so that they can push for an ideal that failed in 2010.
Essentially, they are repeating the failures of history. They do not care about
the possible pitfalls, they only care about their own self interests. It is so
destructive, that it is more likely that all blocksize raising proponents are likely
funded or created by the miners themselves, and not a band of Satoshi idealists.
Only miners would be so egotistical to think that they can control the whole system.
Some still haven't learned that the economies do not follow them, but vice versa.
They do not understand that "block forming consensus" is not enough to balance
this type of system. There are still pieces missing for full automation.
The BU proponents do not understand this. They believe Satoshi created the
perfect system and that by allowing the miners to act in an unrestricted and
unilateral manner, that we will reach the Bitcoin utopia dreamed about in early
years. Those were children's fantasies then, totally unrealistic based on our
current technological limitations. When Satoshi added the 1MB Cap, it was an
acknowledgment that the technology was still lacking. He didn't propose a
flexable cap for very important reasons. He chose a concrete restriction fix.
