Quote from: aarturka on May 22, 2017, 01:45:06 PM

I think it's ok. First they activate SegWit. Then everyone will see that hardfork is redundant. But if some fools try to hard fork after SW they will end up with alt on their hands.

Yes this is exactly why the 2Mb folks want the block size increase after SegWit activation but before the lock.

Quote from: CoinCube on May 22, 2017, 01:04:16 PM

Quote from: Meuh6879 on May 22, 2017, 12:10:44 PM

Quote from: Asrael999 on May 22, 2017, 08:24:11 AM

So is it an attempt to stop the User activated fork getting traction ?

yes, because the period from august 2017 to november 2017 is the enforced period for Segwit ... not the LOCK period.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

so Segwit2Mb is a trap.
they want introduce the 2Mb before SegWit LOCK.

So the folks who want 2Mb don't trust the SegWit people not to break away after SegWit is locked and block a later block size increase?

Sounds understandable given the emotionalism on this issue. It would be very disruptive to activate SegWit and then deactivate it before LOCK. Seems unlikely the miners would do this. It seems far more likely that the SegWit folks would increase their opposition to a block size increase to 2 Mb once they already have what they want.

I am not understanding why this is not a reasonable roadmap forward.

This is an issue that is not going to have a "winner" it can only be solved by compromise and consensus.