The remainder of the miners who don't agree with this plan have likely already moved to mining Bitcoin Cash, which has no Segwit and 8 MB blocks. I doubt there will be anyone interested in mining a Segwit/1MB fork, it will be technically obsolete.
The miners did it anyway. The bitcoin reference client is not supporting this, and claims that 90% of miners will split are completely unverified (and, to be fair, unverifiable).
The best available evidence is mined blocks, as they are unforgeable. Despite being under no obligation to do so, >90% of miners are currently explicitly endorsing the 2x agreement in their blocks[1]. Any claim that miners will fail to do what they continue to explicitly say they will do should be met with skepticism.
[1] See "Segwit2x (intention)" here: https://coin.dance/blocks
Most mining pools set that for you, BTW. And there has been some (unverifiable) claims that the main mining manufacturer, Bitmain, is pressuring their customers on this.
> Any claim that miners will fail to do what they continue to explicitly say they will do should be met with skepticism.
On the contrary, it's clear we're going to get a split, and in the past we've seen miners mine pretty much exactly according to exchange range on each side of the fork.
Annoyingly, lite clients won't be able to choose, because the BTC1 dev refuses to use the hardfork bit (the sign bit of nVersion in the block header) to flag their fork. Lite clients, unlike full nodes, follow the most-work chain without checking; since they anticipate hashrate majority, they seem to be trying to leverage that into a user majority.
It's going to get messy :(
That's unlike a full node, which fully validates every block and transaction on the bitcoin network on his own. Full nodes will insist on following the network rules they're familiar with, regardless of what the miners say.
I still think this is a good thing. The Bitcoin Core developers have restricted the Bitcoin network for too long. Perhaps this will serve as a wake up call.
Personally I still think Bitcoin Cash was the right move. Segwit adds a lot of complexity and technical debt, bigger blocks were really all that's needed as evidenced by how quickly BCC dealt with the transaction backlogs. Unfortunately the market didn't agree.
Crap, I just found out about the fake "bcoreproject" twitter account, which of course, claims this as a pinned post. And then the fake "nullc_" twitter account (nullc is the common nick of Greg Maxwell, blockstream CTO and core supporter).
I feel saddened and a little dirty that this is A Thing :(
:(
Restricted it how?
How so? The very definition of a softfork is that its backwards- and forwards- compatible. Segwit is a softfork that is backwards- and forwards- compatible.
The mining community seems split between strong segwit supporters and large block supporters. Segwit alone was not able to achieve consensus and would never have activated. Segwit2x was a compromise that conceded segwit in exchange for an increase in the block size.
If the goal of the miners is to increase centralization by increasing the block size, they had the opportunity to switch to Bitcoin Cash when it forked. Note that I don't completely buy the centralization argument, especially when we're talking about a 2MB -- it's not like 1MB is some magical number handed down by Ganesh. The main risk of the increase has always been the attendant dangers of a hard cork.
I'm a Bitcoin Cash supporter, but even I'll admit that Bitcoin Cash is a direct attack on Bitcoin (Core), that was not entirely successful, although more successful than opponents thought it could be.
Beyond the deceptive name, Bitcoin Cash is at worst an honest difference in views. S2X on the other hand is being promoted with extreme levels of deception and dishonesty (like the content of this article, which states it's an upgrade rather than an incompatible replacement and claims that BU and Classic are compatible full nodes when they aren't any such thing: they don't implement any of the new under-specified S2X rules, ... they don't even implement segwit.)
> about a 2MB
You're not talking about 2MB-- 2MB is the size of blocks with segwit in effect. You're talking about 4 to 8 MB, which are above what prior research indicated was supportable even while considering a subset of considerations (such as initial synchronization), _and_ while not allowing any safety margin.
The sad part is that if that if they do what they are signaling, the difficulty adjustment of Bitcoin will take many months, and only 2-3 blocks will be mined every day until then.