According to Peter Todd, he contributed only 7 commits in 2015 and 0 in 2016-17. He also didn't do any peer reviews. He was effectively an inactive member of Core and kicked out. Now he's the guy who's going to take BTC from $65 billion to $1 trillion+?
The guys who built BTC to what it is, Core, unanimously oppose 2x on philosophical and technical grounds. Now we're supposed to trust a single renegade dev and team backed by a closed door corporate agreement to take BTC to the next level? My faith is in Core, they haven't let us down yet.
You miss my point if you think I prefer losing Core and getting Garzik. That is not what I get to chose anyway. That seems like it's up to the miners and the exchanges. My question is why do you predict operational or technical failure after 2xhf if the miners hang together? Especially short term. Longer term I would well imagine that Garzik might well attract some decent talent on a project as visible and crucial as this. He may not have been a big commiter for the last couple years but I am just not seeing a dope.
As has been pointed out by others the majority hash power has what it has. I am trying to understand what happens after 2xhf and if you have tangible reasons why it's going to operationally or technically fail then please share.