Miners will follow the money. Which ever fork gets higher valuations will receive more hashrate, as everything else would be mining at a loss. Whichever fork gets more hashrate is more likely to survive. Whichever fork survives, will be the new Bitcoin.
[...]
I'm hoping 2x takes over since it can do twice the transactions with no downside so that is obviously better for bitcoin.
[...]
The downside is fewer nodes and subsequently increased centralization, making it easier for governments to practically shut-down Bitcoin. Additionally mining could further consolidate, making it even harder for small to mid-sized miners to join the fun.
[...]
Well thats not true at all. Bitcoin is going to need A LOT MORE SCALING in the future, so an increase to 2MB is just the second step on what will no doubt be a lot of steps toward scaling to meet a global mass market demand. Sure it doesn't need the 2MB fork in November, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if segwit blocks are full within a year, at which point it will need larger blocks, so why are you people against it so much when it is obviously needed for the future?
[...]
Here is the meat of the problem. Bitcoin is indeed going to need a lot more scaling. Which is exactly why a linear scaling solution such as simply increasing block size is not going to cut it. Which is exactly why 2nd layer solution such as Lightning Network that have far better scaling properties are so important.
No one is against increasing Bitcoin's transaction throughout. It's just the
how that is debatable. And unfortunately the solution is not quite as simple as a block size increase, since a change like that might come with a lot of side-effects that may not be all that obvious at a first glance.