I suggest compromise or walk away. Prolonged contention is unlikely the best course.
Agreed, compromise is always the best option for both sides. Competition always has consequences for both. However, in this case, I think competition is essential, I think bitcoin should be segwit.
And there's the rub; walking away means one "side" gets the legacy/brand and the other is an altcoin.
Ok but what kind of a compromise do you propose and why do you think it is a good idea? I used to think the same way as you but I realized that it is easy to say "do a compromise", but when asked what kind of compromise I cannot answer or I realize I do not know much to comment.
Totally agree; saying compromise is indeed the easy part; creating it is the hard work. In this particular case it will start with both sides agreeing to something important and then each side giving in enough to be meaningful. For example, if both sides can agree to something like this;
"It is important to keep things decentralized."
If there is no agreement to something important then walk away. If there is true agreement then proceed to the next step; each side gives up something meaningful, e.g.;
1) All will promote/encourage multiple independent development teams. One dominate/central development team goes against our agreed to guiding principle.
2) All will agree to some small increment in the protocol at first and then measure/observe the impact and move towards results that work best toward decentralization.
This is just an example. The actual negotiations would likely end up somewhere else. When both sides feel heard and respected then there is the possibility of compromise.
Even in a walk away situation, it should be possible to negotiate inheritance of the legacy/brand; perhaps something along the lines of ETH/ETC.
