SegWit has already block size increase. But Jihan and Ver and their chinese miners puppets just want to control bitcoin not to increase block size. There's no possible compromise, no more debate we should just ignore and discard them and procede with UASF.
 Bitcoin future is at stake and if Bitcoin fails all alts will follow, people wont believe in crypto

My opinion is the opposite.  If bitcoin fails, all of the speculation will leave crypto, and we finally can use it without 100-fold blown up market caps and have competing technologies instead of this old, clunky design of bitcoin.  With no dominant crypto, with dying coins every day, and new coins every other day, with tiny market caps each of them, and small user communities, USING it.

As logical and good it may sound, it is unlikely to happen. The miners sadly do not care about block size all they want is control and high fees. They want to influence the price and take away the decentralised features, they want to rule it and it's sad that the community is weakly giving it up to them. The community should have fought back but no why would we. We don't want segwit or bu. And if we don't take a stand now, it will be too late.

miners cant be trusted with producing blocks that the network will accept?

please go ahead and do a UASF

S stands for Safe right? or was it Sotf?

This is the official propaganda.  Segwit calls for centralisation through a banking layer on top of bitcoin, the lightning network.  BU implements dynamic block sizes.  

The totally ridiculous argument that BU would centralize, is that non-mining nodes, which have nothing to say in bitcoin, contrary to all the propaganda that tells the opposite, would need somewhat better network connections and bigger hard disks.  But bitcoin is a *proof of work* consensus system, not a *count of node* consensus system, so no matter if there are many, or few, non mining nodes, the only true consensus mechanism in bitcoin is delivered by miners: proof of work.  And that is inevitably centralizing.  

The people making decisions in bitcoin are the mining pools: they decide what blocks to build, according to what protocol, on which other blocks.  They decide of the choice of transactions and on all the rest.  Strictly speaking, if you have 51% of the hash power, you can decide all you want in bitcoin.  Well, here they are:

https://blockchain.info/pools

Count the number of deciders that need to collude to reach 51%.  THIS is bitcoin's centralisation.  Not the poor guys installing nodes in their basement that do not mine.  These are nothing but proxy servers to the chain that these people decide to make.

So at this moment, bitcoin is decentralized over 5 entities for a small majority.  9 entities if you need 75% majority.  Put 5 people in a room, and you decide with small margin.  Put 9 people in a room, and they decide with 75% majority.

That's bitcoin's centralization.

I know the propaganda tells you otherwise, nodes blah blah blah.  It ain't so.  Bitcoin is an oligarchy of less than 10 people.  But they do their jobs correctly.   Because bitcoin is a proof-of-work consensus system, and proof of work is in the hands of less than 10 people.

The miners' hardware aren't in their hands, true.  But the miners' hardware is not deciding upon which blocks to build, according to what protocol.  They only sell hashes to the pools.

There is no need for BU, there have already proven they are incompetent, they are self serving people with no good intention at heart for Bitcoin, just imagine all miners was running BU code when the bug was detected, the price would have tumble by now. What you people just do understand is that SegWit makes so many things possible. LN network is more than 8MB capacity when implemented and many more that will be implemented when SW is passed

BU + segwit are still debating and still there are not solution for all of comunity of bitcoin,
 I hope debating ending because as comunity of bitcoin we must make sure
bitcoin has good future and growing to more better than righ now, long life and can be used as currency.

Yes, you fall for that erroneous propaganda.  If you would think for yourself, you would be able to understand why that is totally flawed as an idea.  

If there is only one miner in the whole world, there is only one block chain, right ?  Nobody else is able to make another block chain, right ?  Because you need a lot of proof of work to make one.

Now, tell me, that single sole block chain made by the sole miner doesn't suit you.  The whole network "denies" its blocks. So what is "the whole network" now doing ?  Nothing.  No transactions get processed.  No wallets update.  You cannot put coins on an exchange, you cannot withdraw them, nothing.   All nodes came to a standstill.  

So if you are a user, you have the choice of accepting the sole block chain that is being made, or not having a block chain at all.  Bet that you will adapt your node to accept the sole block chain that is around.  Bet that exchanges will do the same.  And in order to get it, you better connect directly to the miner's node infrastructure, if most of your peer nodes came to a grinding halt.

If there's one miner, that makes a block chain according to his wishes, you have no choice but to use it, or to leave the coin all together and all your addresses on it.

I know that's not what the propaganda tells you, but think for yourself, and find a hole in this reasoning.

That's why it is called "consensus by proof of work", not by "number of nodes".

You fail because you are trying to make points that are not valid to real world situations.
If a single miner did come about, then Bitcoin is done and everyone goes to a new coin.
So this example is worthless.

Pose an example that is worthy of discussion.

BTW "consensus by proof of work" was defined when miners and validators were a single entity.
Your definition of it, stopped appling to Bitcoin when GPUs and ASICs came about.

What is actually occurring now is "proof of work block building reliant on node network consensus".

Can you cite the documentation that you must be referring to.
Banking nodes may exist in this future world obviously, but where is it that the system is reliant upon them.
Please provide your sources.

So as I stated, what company is going to run the second layers?
You are talking about Lightning Network. That is one proposed idea for second layers.