I am in favor of Segwit, off chain transactions, LN, Schnorr signature, these are necessary to prevent miner manipulation to some extent and also to give users a choice. I am not good with too much technicalities, basics, Segwit is a block size increase/block weight increase. Transaction malleability, 4:1, 1:4. If I am right the base limit is around 2 MB.
Now I guess this where the big blockers don't agree. I personally do believe 1 MB blocksize wouldn't be enough forever, sooner or later it needs to be increased. Big blockers believe a soft fork implementation to increase blocksize wouldn't be sufficient in the future and I guess Segwit + 2x increases the base block limit to 8 MB.
But hard forking the network three months from now would be suicidal. I am not dragging myself into the politics of bitcoin, just my opinion. Core has been working on bitcoin from the beginning. I don't know if Core would agree upon a hard fork or not. If yes then the Core developers and Jeff Garzik team of developers could work together to create a robust code through efficient planning and multiple testings and then implement it one year from now.
In my honest opinion I do believe bitcoin should scale with an equal blend of off chain and on chain implementations. Off chain solutions might be a bit harsh on miners, once all the bitcoins have been mined, incentives would be transaction fees only, a necessity for a PoW protocol, and off chain solutions would keep them in check.
As far as LN or big blocks are concerned, then the centralization argument can be put forward from both the sides. There is and would be centralization in some of the working modules of bitcoin, but as far the whole protocol isn't served into a platter and handed it to the government, I am good with it.
BCH has opened a Pandora's box. ViaBTC was planning to launch an ICO to buy/rent hash power to fork the network. Some individuals with heavy pockets wouldn't shy away from forking the network for their own personal gains. Splitting protocol, multiple chains/coins, uneven distribution of hash power, lack of decentralization and security. In the end bitcoin users would end up holding different pieces of bitcoins.
I had read a post on discussion thread today from an user asking when is the next fork so he/she can cash in quickly, no shit given about the consequences of a fork
Bitcoin is an open source protocol. Everyone can argue and create a lot of commotion, but at some point in time everyone would have to agree up on something or make a compromise for a cause which they believe in.