So to super-simplify it. Who wins with this assumed scenario, the scale on chain/big blockers or the off chain/blockstream faction?
However, the twist is that Blockstream gets Segwit first, while the 2x block size increase is 3 months away. During that time I expect Blockstream to be screaming to everyone that will listen to try to stop the block size increase from actually happening. They will likely not be successful but it will sadly continue to be a contentious issue until at least the end of October.
Many people want larger blocks, we want on-chain transactions scaled way up. I'm yet to hear a good argument against large blocks. Storage is dirt cheap. Connections between servers are generally at least 1Gbps.
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/kycpoll/answers.php
> Connections between servers are generally at least 1Gbps
So much for peer to peer electronic cash, then...
That's what happens when you're in a bubble. Your echo-chamber reflects the same ideas back to you.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not against Segwit at all, as long as the blocks are increased. So if someone wants to take their transactions off the chain, go right ahead.
> So much for peer to peer electronic cash, then...
Bitcoin is not peer to peer in the traditional sense, the money goes through the network of servers (nodes). It's called peer-to-peer, because there's no central bank, nor any authority that can stop the money flow.
SegWit2X, which is about to activate is a compromise that gives both Segwit (improving off-chain) and a slight increase.
There is however uncertainty among big blockers about the increase as it is three months later, so it could still fail resulting in SegWit only.
The Bitcoin Cash (ABC) fork is addressing this by forking non-SegWit and bigger blocks, though its support is rather uncertain at this point.
Is that 2x increase enough to appease the big blockers? As in, does it settle the discussion or this will happen again in 12 months?