snip
they way you see a fork is an intentional split.(controversial). and keeping both side alive..
to me i would call that a controversial fork where a clear defined single direction cannot be established and so extra code is added so the 2 decisions do not rule each other out(blacklisting opposing user agents/flags), which allows both decisions to survive.
a consensual fork is when there is adequate demand and utility that the rules can change without causing a second chain, where the natural consensus mechanism of orphans that would kill off a minority and everyone continues in a single direction of new rules..
I entirely agree.
in the last year of debate.. the conclusion is that all software implementations should have released a fork code with a consensual activation mechanism. meaning if a high majority desire shows, it activates and then orphans take care of the minority until the minority move over. leading to a single chain.
emphasis high majority desire to move in a single direction
i do not favour controversial forks that add code to force the minority chain to survive. (clams)
but that said i also do not favour a certain dev team to veto even releasing code out of fear that everyone would actually show a high desire for it. so abusing the consensus mechanism by not allow users to choose, thus not even giving any new rules a chance.
core fans scream doomsdays of controversial hard forks. but dont realise that core is preventing consensual forks by vetoing a release to ensure the community never get to a healthy majority. thus causing the controversy
This is a good point, we can always say that we have alternatives, like Classic and Unlimited for example but you are right in that this is what causes the controversy in the first place.
so here is the thing.
if cores only worry is a healthy majority.
how about include the hardfork in their softfork code as both require high majority activation parameters. thus when it activates there is no harm because of the consensus mechanism is there to resolve it.
I agree entirely, if only Core actually did such a thing, I might even support it. Chances are that this will not happen, which is why splitting the chain might be the next best solution, it does not actually matter what we think about it, I am confident it will happen regardless there are already enough motivated people working on it. The only way I see this not happening would be if Core compromises in their position and includes a hard fork for increasing the blocksize limit in one of their following releases.
Anyone is free to choose. Why don't you fork the code and promote it? See if users actually support your fork? Why do people insist on leveraging hash rate to provoke users to change networks?
Just leave miners out of it. If forkers had support, they would fork, and the community would follow. That they refuse to fork and instead lobby miners to pressure the rest of us to fork is very telling.
The beautiful thing is that nobody has to follow, as a holder of Bitcoin you will have the same share of Bitcoins in both chains. You can just sell the "big block" coins and ignore that chain and just continue as if nothing has changed. I would advise holding coins on both chains after a split, better to hedge our bets.
You asked for promotion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btcfork/ 
This is how I learned to stop worrying and love the fork.
