There are many technical reasons, but I'll respond differently.

Bitcoin is not a business-coin. Bitcoin is an idea-coin. It was never about the price, the price is just a side-effect. For many early adopters and developers, Bitcoin is about changing the world. Not in a marketing bullshit-world, but in a real way. We really believe that the world would be a better place if we've put a stop to government and banks monopoly on controlling the money. You may disagree, and it's fine. We believe in it, and we want to have the most secure, uncensorable and attack-resistant value transferring network. If it takes $30 to pay to transfer on such network, so be it. Increasing the block size compromises on that property, so we are not willing to do it, even though it's painful for everyone. We will wait. We have credit cards, we PayPal, and we can use altcoins before we get there. The price will rise and fall, users will come and go. We held at $1, we held at $10, we held at $20k, and we will hold at $10 again if it's required. We will get our layer 2 solution and get both our uncensorable, government-resistant network and instant cheap micropayments. That's why most of us dumped BCH coins without thinking twice.

What most other coins are (not all!) is a business-coin. They are mostly pointless. Ethereum could be really a centralized smart-contracts platform run by Google or Amazon, and noone would care much. Actually, I believe that's how ETH is going to end. I believe Amazon engineers are working on it already. Because who cares about centralization or censorship resistance, if the main use case is breading virtual cats? No government will be interested in censoring that.

What BCash is, is a scam coin. It's all about ASICBOOST and Roger Ver's hurt pride. He would like to be a pope of Bitcoin, but noone really cares about him. Except for a talent for scamming people for his own gain, he is noone.

I couldn't agree more. I'll add, if you are interested in making money there are plenty of coin's, including BCash, to spend your time with. Go for it. But if you are interested in something beyond speculation, it's pretty hard to ignore the shady reputations and ecosystem of many of the most valuable blockchains. Dash written and rewritten to centralize everything to Evan. Ripple is basically the first ICO with all token being issued in the same manner. It's pretty surprising these issues don't matter to anyone. The only outlier really is Etherium. I think there should be both centralized and decentralized systems and Etherium fits the former well and with the least amount of scammyness in it's foundation.

While I'd agree that Ethereum was not created with an intent of scammyness, I wouldn't single it out as an outlier for good behavior. The dream of Ethereum was "code as law," yet key players have demonstrated the ability and willingness to implement hard forks in order to undo unpopular outcomes of valid Solidity code. So while I don't believe Ethereum was created with a scammy intent, I think it is certainly too premature for public release, and attempts to "fix" issues caused by this immaturity has let to some scammy behavior.

I think they have valid arguments for keeping smaller blocks, but this FUD is getting ridiculous.

This very post has no new ideas, has no listed author, and is posted by a two hour old user account. It's not even about discussing what's best for Bitcoin any more.

Increasing the blocksize increases centralization at a time where miners have unprecedented power.

How does it increase centralization and why have miners more power than 5 years ago? (Just because the value increased? Do they have more influence to the community?)

Could you pleace elaborate on that?

it increases centralisation because large blocks do not propagate as easily, and therefore encourage mining co-location