Is it not the case that segwit coded as a hard fork would mean that all UTXO's can be spent with segwit? No stupid network topology introduced like with the soft fork mechanism? If so, then yes I think it would be accepted, unless ...
Given that dev fraction ( blockstream core) solution SW looks rejected by miner fraction, compromise should be proposed from second fraction, not first one again.
And we might need a third, merchants?, to moderate in case.
The issue here is that if BU community and BU devs are not willing to cap the blocksize
or cap the blockweight, then there can never be compromise. They will fork eventually
since they are extremists. They are not looking out for the future, only themselves now,
in the most perfect form of greed. The greed that kills the golden goose, which is the most
stupid of all greeds.
- BU's fundamental purpose is Semi-Unrestricted block building (accelerates network centralization).
This is to bring about a more currency like device now, instead of later.
They do not mind network centralization or do deny/ignore its possibility of occurrence.
- CORE's fundamental purpose is Semi-Restricted block building (preserves network decentralization).
This is to maintain the unregulatibility and other like aspects now and later.
They do not mind slowed user growth or high fees or do deny/ignore their possible impacts.
They are fundamentally opposed. Like a couple that has different interests now and changed over time.
The normal situation would be that the couple would break up and each do their own thing.
If a compromise can be reached, it will be either full capitulation or a masterful answer still unknown.