Segwit2X and Bitcoin Hmmmmmm

Either we avoid SW2X altogether which removes uncertainty and could cause a decent price spike. Or we defeat the SW2X and in doing so prove that Bitcoin is pretty much impossible for any coalition to control against the will of the users, no matter their hashing power and industry influence. The second option could likely lead to price decrease short-mid term.

Now I'm not really entertaining the idea of SW2X not being defeated by miners being forced to return to legacy Bitcoin by financial incentives. I think it's incredibly unlikely given:

• Current user sentiment on various social media (I know this isn't worth much on it's own)
• Current futures prices ("unfair" contracts can't explain 85% vs. 15% no matter how much Jeff Garzik would like for that to be the case)
• Almost unanimous dev support by the top devs in the space backing the legacy chain
• The businesses/miners backing SW2X are much more reliant on revenue and can't afford being ideologues to near the same extend.

There are probably more good reasons I'm overlooking.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, my point is;

Whether or not SW2X implodes pre-fork, it doesn't really matter long term for the hodlers/users.

Some people want bigger blocks. Others thinks bigger blocks never should happen.

Edit: some of us have been trying to build concensus for larger blocks since 2012-2013. Most of us has been aware all this time that broad consensus is necessary, and many has been trying to get Core to adopt a plan for larger blocks that the community agrees with.

So why has no such plan ever come closer to anything other than "we'll consider it for the future" despite that blocks so frequently has been near 1 MB for so long with frequent hours long backlogs?

If it's really just about wanting to ensure concensus, why hasn't all these people tried to help build consensus behind a working proposal, instead of just fighting every single proposal that has been made to date?

I don't support any one particular current proposal. I used to support XT (which originated from a few core developers disagreeing with the rest on policy, because they didn't want to wait anymore), but then the community started fracturing and that proposal died, and nothing after it has been anywhere near good enough. And after that, every single big block proposal has been instantly shot down with both censorship and all kinds of accusations of malice.

Currently I'm rather the guy who wants to see fancy math like Zero-knowledge proofs implemented to allow full security in SPV mode.

The guy who wants to extend a system similar to Lightning Network into a full scale programmable platform (similar to ethereum) with user definable programs accessible on the blockchain with custom interfaces, barely needing to touch the actual blockchain except for checkpointing the system state. Block creation wouldn't really be done by the miners, they would rather pick blocks assembled by "aggregators" that collect "state updates" for the blockchain and that condense them into small checkpoints, along with Zero-knowledge proofs of everything being correct.

But that's decades away, and if Bitcoin can't scale before that then it might end up earning a reputation as unusable and becoming forgotten, replaced by altcoins willing to scale by other means.

Because even with Lightning Network and segwit, Bitcoin can't handle even a few million simultaneous users simply because it can't handle all the channel commitment transactions at once.