Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
I thought that the framework of this current line of discussion was between the kinds of segwit to run, rather than not running segwit at all, which seems to be the additional framework that you are adding, Jbreher.
There is no "kinds" of segwit. O.k.? There could be a better way of expressing the matter.
I was responding to what appeared to be Jbreher's differing framework, which seemed to be an argument not to run segwit at all.... however, the previous line of discussion in this thread seemed to be about whether anyone was going to have enough trust in some of these anti-core persons or entities in order to run any of their variations of segwit2x software - or if they might just wait for some variation that may get published by core.
If we are talking about the present or we are talking about the future, our way of framing this can be different, because in recent times, it seems that there has not been any kind of segwit2x software to actually run, so instead we have miners and nodes who are signaling some kind of intention to run future software that would be segwit2x, so it seems to me that within that question, that particular group might not be arguing directly that segwit itself is bad because segwit is part of the package that they are proposing to go forward with.
In the end, unless they start running actual segwit2x software, it remains unclear what extent of significance or meaning to attribute to their signaling about something that is either not yet available or is only in a kind of testing phase - and might be available in the near future.
My understanding is that there are more than one possibility of what various nodes and/or miners could end up running, so that is my reference to "various", and really it seems difficult to speculate about how it might all add up to achieving some kind of locking in result of segwit or 2x or hardfork or changes in governance.
The contention is "what comes after segwit?"
That might be the contention, but we also have questions regarding how to get from non-segwit to segwit activation. From what I understand, we do not yet have a situation in which we could proclaim that segwit is locked in, and if we are talking about the future, there is going to be some difficulties talking about what happens after x, if we are not even sure if x is going to happen for sure, yet... and so what happens after x seems to depend to some extent in how x is achieved, assuming that it is achieved, and when.
On the Core side is "nothing" (i.e., just segwit) and on the "other" side is "larger blocks" (i.e., segwit and 2MB).
You really believe that the matter is that straight-forward? I will concede that we have the issues of segwit and larger blocks, but we also have the issues of hardfork and changes in consensus that are dangling in the midst of the implications of various possible paths forward, no?
That's what all of this boils down to, which is why it's laughable that some go around claiming that the want of a quick adoption of segwit with the guarantee of larger blocks to follow is an "attempt to delay segwit".
Well, if we have a whole lot of individuals who are considering what they should do, beyond merely signaling intention, then they likely need to think a few steps ahead if they actually start to run different software and what ramifications that might have... or maybe they attempt to hedge in one direction or another, which may be difficult if there is a kind of forcing of the issue and shortening of the timeline, then they may be watching what others are doing, too in order that they don't get left orphaned in whatever they end up doing.
It's sad that it's often hard to follow the actual facts with so much FUD from both sides.
It does not seem to be an easy issue - and it seems to me that most of the FUD comes from the big blocker side of this matter, but you could be correct that some FUD is coming from others.