Yeah. And actually that brings up an interesting question: what would happen if we end up with two coins that each receive about half of the mining power currently dedicated to bitcoin? Would the price of each coin be about half of what bitcoin is now, so around $2100-$2200? I guess price and hash rate are going to have to reach some kind of equilibrium after a little bit. Low price and high hash rate are not sustainable, of course.
At the end users are the ones that give value to the blockchain, the miners have the advantage that they were able to get some important businesses on their side, while most other businesses have not taken a stance, so if they convince enough of these businesses then it is possible that users will be forced to use the segwit2x coin.
Hmm, you make a good point--the users/investors really are the ones that determine which fork will survive since they are the ones who decide which fork is going to be worth more. Most of the miners can go in one direction, but if users/investors go in the other, the miners will eventually be forced to follow suit or go bankrupt. And from a user's perspective (and noting that I haven't done a lot of research yet on the consequences of the proposed changes), it seems to me like segwit2x is a good thing. The transaction times are prohibitively slow (if I were to transfer money or buy something, I'd use something faster like LTC), and the fees are way too high. Segwit2x sounds like it tries to improve both of these.