Re: The Barry Silbert segwit agreement with >80% miner agreement.
So you want a hard fork to destroy bitcoin and it's dominance, and the other arguments you made were just nonsense?
STAHP. Educate yourself. Don't you know that bitcoin has already hard forked several times in its history?https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki
Bitcoin didn't split in half - there is still only one bitcoin.
First of all the immediate fix was a soft fork. They went back to a chain which every node could validate, instead of having two chains. One which only new nodes could validate, and one which only old nodes could validate correctly. Then people could either upgrade or increase the maximum locks for BerkleyDB. Those who didn't would experience random crashes.
The solution was a bugfix. Non-upgraded nodes would experience random crashes.
This happened a long time ago when Bitcoin still was young and had very few tech-savvy users. Upgrading all nodes with a non-controversial bugfix or just increase the maximum locks, was easy.
There was absolutely no risk of anyone losing money by getting on the wrong side of a hard fork. In fact, there never was a hard fork. No block has ever been produced on what would be the other side of that fork.
OK I see, since you're afraid of hard forks, they've never happened
. In fact, TWO bitcoin hard forks happened March 2013 - one due to a bug, and one planned. Due to differing database locking implementations in 0.8 during the BerkeleyDB -> leveldb move, the main chain got split 60/40%. Devs and users then moved quickly to adopt another hard fork, version 0.8.1, which changed consensus rules again, and forked unpatched nodes off the network. The last unpatched node disappeared in August 2013. One person did a double spend, but returned the funds.
As others have said, many altcoins hard fork all of the time, it's not a big deal. Monero has hard forked 4 times in the past year. See how dead Monero is, only $50/coin. /sarc