Seems pretty unlikely, heh.  BCH supporters made a pretty huge song and dance about how SegWit supposedly wasn't part of Satoshi's vision and isn't "true" to Bitcoin, so there'd be an inordinate quantity of humble pie to swallow if they went down that route.  It's too much of a marketing U-turn to take it seriously.  It could potentially even cause a loss of some of that existing support.  Those who do genuinely oppose SegWit could abandon it and look elsewhere.  Plus I'm not convinced BCH would take the market considering the fairly divisive manner in which it suddenly appeared out of nowhere.  I think most people have made up their minds about BCH by this point and probably won't be convinced otherwise.



Some people around here have some pretty interesting ideas about "control" in Bitcoin and mistakenly believe that only one single group of developers are allowed to make decisions and that miners are somehow a subservient underclass who do the bidding of the devs and can't decide anything for themselves.  Time and again they'll claim it's an attempt to take control from that group of developers, but then they can't seem to square this belief with the undeniable fact that anyone can edit the code and run any code they like, which means those developers never had control to begin with.  I would say they're safe to ignore because their views are so logically flawed, but the sad thing is, people are sometimes taken in by this ridiculous view and start repeating their rhetoric about "hostile takeovers", so you should continue to confront them wherever you find them.  Everyone does what they think is best for themselves because that's how this thing was designed to work.  It never has been and never will be about preserving the power of some centralised group of coders, because they don't (and shouldn't) have all the power.  No one dictates anything.  Not developers, not miners, not users.  It's only Bitcoin when all three come together voluntarily because incentives are aligned.