Personally, I don't want bitcoin to split. It is a confusing process and it will affect the businesses and merchants who allow Bitcoin as payment. It will basically stuff up the entire Bitcoin landscape. However, I still think we need to implement SegWit. Block size is a big issue and if we can actually reduce the space that a transaction takes up by 60%, then it will sole many problems, for now. But in the future we would probably need to use another method when more people become involved into Bitcoin.
What do you think?
EDIT: Sorry about the title. I meant to write August 1. Is there anyway I can edit that?
I am not against bigger blocks, but not at the cost of bitcoin network being controlled by a single entity or a couple of individuals.
1. Manufacturer of mining equipments want to control the network. Can it be more centralized?
2. There was ghash pool that hit 51%, and there is Chinese mining cartel with more than 51% combined.
3. Chinese government isn't in favour of bitcoin, a centralized decision to ban bitcoin in China would end up in taking down half of the decentralized bitcoin network.
Spam attacks, threatening the community because you own half of the network, is this the way to find a scalable solution?
Increasing block size is just a temporary solution. LN, sidechain/drivechain, extension blocks is a necessity if bitcoin needs to be used as an appropriate medium of exchange.
The ability for a protocol change to be successfully implemented ultimately rests with those who accept bitcoins in exchange for value.
Let the economic majority decide.