Bitcoin does not need a rushed, let alone contentious, and dangerous hard fork, which is coded by an amateur such as Garzik, anytime soon. 
Here's what Bitcoin does not need (for the third time, no less, so I might try some extra emphasis).
Bitcoin doesn't want or need your pampered, mollycoddled, nanny-state, protectionist foolishness. Bitcoin survives in the wild and grows stronger and more robust through adaptation and freedom of choice, selecting the best code available from the open market at any given time. Bitcoin does not need you to defend it from would-be attackers. It can do that all by itself and, whether you personally approve of the code being used or not, Bitcoin will come out stronger at the end of it
You can have your plush toy badger with all the health and safety warnings and no sharp edges. I'll have the rabid honey badger that rips your damn face off if the inclination strikes. Cry harder about your boogeymen, Bitcoin doesn't care.
Why should this "power" include telling other people what software they can or can't run? If users could do that (and I'm glad they can't) THEN the system has failed. Users will always have the freedom to decide which chain they wish to transact on. Why isn't that enough for you? Why do you want to dictate terms to people who don't owe you a damn thing?
The same reason for which the corporate baboons, i.e. attackers attempt to hijack the name Bitcoin for their own terms. Users with actual knowledge about the system, should educate and spread the use of Bitcoin clients not "cancer altcoin disguised as Bitcoin" clients. Waaaagh! Hijackers! Waaaagh! Hostile Takeovers! Waaaagh! Sacking Developers!
Could any of you protectionist fascists sound any more juvenile? How many more times? There can be no takeover unless you give these corporations your private keys or your preferred dev team give them control of the repo. Assuming you and the devs aren't dumb enough to do that, you can't have any decisions made for you. You are in total control of your respective funds and/or repositories. But you don't have total control over what any of the other network participants do, so quit trying.
Your use of the word "listening" here distinctly implies not just "hearing" what the community and developers are saying, but also "obeying". Hence slave. They listened. They just didn't agree.
The latter is a lie and you are being fed kool-aid. Pretty much anyone who understands Segwit, which does not include Ver, Jihan, Wright, Oliver, Thomas, etc., embraces Segwit. Jihan has been paying for anti-Segwit propaganda in China a few months ago. Wake up.Yes, they didn't listen and they're just including SegWit for shits and giggles. If they weren't listening, they wouldn't have included SegWit at all. What are you even on about?
And even if you could prevent their involvement, you'd have to sacrifice one of Bitcoin's primary tenets of permisionlessness in order to do so. It's far simpler just to let them get on with whatever the hell they want to do. You can still run whatever code you want. Beyond that, you're as impotent as everyone else.
False. You can fork away the current miners.Again with the what? The miners are forking away. Doesn't mean they're gone for good. The only way you're getting rid of them permanently is with the nuclear option of an algo change. You're perfectly free to pursue that avenue if you want.
Until 5 minutes pass and they find another boogeyman to plead for someone in authority to "save" us from.
It was fine until we got Anderesen'd, Hearnia'd. Now only two people are left in the way of a peaceful Bitcoin.This forum isn't capable of a peaceful Bitcoin.
It's a 24/7/365 witch-hunt with the assclowns on this site. They can't help themselves.
I'm not here saying any "side" has any kind of moral high ground. Both have done stupid, petty crap.
No. Bitcoin Core, as a group of independent individuals has done nothing wrong. Yet Garzik, Ver, Jihan keep attacking them and condoning attacks on them.And I commend the devs on maintaining a mostly neutral stance despite the slanging match encompassing them. This is purely about the 24/7/365 witch-hunt assclowns vs the so-called BigBlockers idiocy. It's all just posturing at the end of the day. Only the numbers matter. And again, Bitcoin will be fine.
1.
"We want to bring Bitcoin to more users because it has unique features and qualities (namely permissionless-ness, resistance to tx censorship, resistance to inflation, pseudonymity) that the existing financial system doesn't offer. The presence of these features is contrary to the interests of many powerful entities (the legacy banking system, governments and their surveillance agencies) and only survive thanks to Bitcoin's decentralisation and absence of centralised points of failure. Being willing to sacrifice or endanger Bitcoin's decentralisation to achieve scaling isn't wise or forward thinking, and is completely self-defeating.
What's the point of on-boarding an ever greater number of users if you run the risk of weakening those features and give those users the same experience than current centralised paiement systems offer, e.g. tx censorship, vulnerability to inflation, and government surveillance? This would be a nonsensical and unproductive thing to do.
Doing this would be all the more absurd that we now know (as we have since 2015) that, before increasing base block size, we can greatly increase throughput through more efficient of block space (with Segwit and, in the near future, with MAST, Schnorr signatures and signatures aggregation) and more importantly, with second layer technologies such as the Lightning Network or sidechains. These technologies are under rapid development, and will soon alleviate scaling."
2.
Bitcoin is a formidable opportunity to bring greater monetary, economic and political freedom to all humans, and the single best hope of freedom-loving persons in this otherwise authoritarian and freedom-hating century. Regardless of whatever understanding or sympathy we may have for you and other NYA signatories, we who care about those things can not accept cooptation by companies who effectively are centralised points of failure at the mercy of governments.
If I could sum up my position (and the position of many users preoccupied with decentralisation), it would be: "let us scale wisely, without making short-term compromises that would weaken Bitcoin's unique features". Merely increasing base block size as soon as we lack space would be akin to kicking the can down the road to serfdom. And changing consensus rules at a whim - or worse, engaging in a 51% attack to coerce the community into following the new rules - would get us there in no time.
Source; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-October/000372.html