Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.
Not exactly. There's more to it than that. They can't use the hardfork bit because they're trying to trick lite clients into following their fork, thus causing maximum disruption (they don't seem to have any other goal).
I have been a little out of the loop recently, but that is some damn shady behavior.In that respect, forcing >1MB blocks is a very good idea, or it would be if their code actually produced >1MB blocks.
I guess that it is a good idea from their perspective.It's the typical level of incompetence we've all come to expect from these clowns.
But Roger told me Garzik has code in billions of devices 
That is funny. Obviously there will be attackers when Segwit2x is deployed. In my opinion, it would be better for them not to rush things and make the release after UASF, just in case it is not successful.
Obviously. Blaming an attacker for faulty code is nonsensical.