One of the most amazing properties of Bitcoin is that it's completely user driven. When it comes to the fundamental consensus rules, no amount of hashrate or corporate agreements can force a change onto the userbase. It's a system that intentionally resists central control. Any changes need to start with userbase support, and I'm just not seeing that with Segwit2x.

If I am wrong, I will find out soon enough.

All the definitions I heard are able to be manipulated easily:

-The/r/bitcoin consensus? Is mainly in existence because of censorship

-User wallets online? Can be easily created with AWS instances

-Bitcoin core? Who decides these bunch of people are in charge to represent all users and not a bunch of other developers?

One obvious alternative is to let Bitcoin follow economic incentives: Bitcoin miners gain Bitcoin, so they have a vested interest that their income is and stays valuable. Thus why not let the miners decide. This is also the only place where you can't influence/manipulate Bitcoin easily.

Quite simply, the coin price indicates support. After the split, there will be two versions of the Bitcoin network with independent prices. A non zero price indicates non-zero support, and as long as it's at least 25% of the original price, it'll probably be okay.

A high price indicates high support.

In the long term, the hashrate follows the price. Miners will mine the coin with the highest price, because they can't afford any other option. Electricity is expensive.

Isn't it at least to a large degree the other way round? That market value is following based on what is the most mined chain? If there's a split and 80% of mining power switches to one branch. Then the 20% branch loses a lot of utility for at least some time. It now has five times slower transactions until difficulty gets adjusted(or you change the proof of work of bitcoin, which itself can be precarious). And now to a minor degree the minority chain has also less safety (less hashing power).

Meanwhile why should anyone buy or send Bitcoins at the point of a split? There's a real chance that one branch will die and then you can lose the coins. The best strategy is probably to wait. So the market at least is in some way inhibited during a split.

On the other hand I'd argue miners of the minority chain have a lot of pressure to change branches. Market is not yet a good indicator only hashing power and they'll lose money if they don't continue to mine on the more profitable chain. Their safest bet is to change chains. Also they know that other miners of the minority chain think probably similarly. That's why imo in Bitcoin history every fork/split was resolved very quickly and a branch "won".

Only the 2x part of segwit2x will need user adoption, but that comes 3 months after segwit has activated (next round of drama, long on popcorn)

Certainly, the last of those options seems to be popular recently.

Would you support something which has not been fundamentally tested?

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin

> ... and tested implementation.

It will go online on the testnet tomorrow

It seems rather premature to call it working before it gets properly tested. And three weeks is a woefully short time to test something like this, fix any issues that are found, and then re-test.

July 14 - Agreement Participants Install and Test Milestone

None of the core developers support segwit2x.

I have no bitcoins, so I have no real preference in what happens. But watching politics destroy a 'decentralised' currency is good entertainment :)