A very entertaining thread! My favourite part is when Alex.BTC takes the time to attempt a thorough, well-reasoned argument, then completely destroys his credibility with a ridiculous string of insults at the end.

I really wish the discussion would focus on finding a solution a clear majority can rally behind, rather than endless attacks on the "other side". Here are the facts as I see them:

Segwit fixes a lot of problems, the biggest being the transaction malleability problem that is holding back layer 2 solutions. It is well tested and has already been approved by a lot of community members. On the downside, the claim that "segwit is a 2MB block size increase" rings false with a lot of people because it comes with caveats.

EC is poorly tested, and it's easy to see how it could be abused to centralize mining power. But it does provide a quick solution to transaction capacity without caveats.

The "hard forks are dangerous" issue is starting to feel like a non-issue when we have this level of conflict in the community.

Both sides have enough influence to prevent the other side from getting their way. We are currently in a deadlock.

So - what does everyone want? Is there a solution that can satisfy the majority of users? What is it?

Core and its supporters want segwit, primarily because it provides the foundational changes needed for a layer 2 scaling solution (Lightning Network), and other improvements down the line like Schnorr Signatures.

BU and its supporters want an immediate transaction capacity increase.

Both sides want more transaction capacity, and the proposed solutions are not mutually exclusive. I propose a hard fork of bitcoin with 4MB block size increase and segwit included.  

Now, let's debate the merits. Put aside the personal, emotional arguments for a moment. Who can argue that the current deadlock is preferable to a 4MB hardfork with segwit?