if so, why do we need segwitX2?
We clearly don't need it and BitcoinCash already proves it and with Bitcoin Core not supporting it, I doubt anyone will be using it, but hopefully whoever signed the New york agreement changes his mind, we don't want chaos.
This kind of comment makes me think that maybe Bitcoin Cash/big blockers are right.
Bitcoin is almost unusable for a large percentage of the world now as the fees are so incredibly high. I wouldn't use a credit card with fees as high as bitcoin.
But we don't need to solve that problem, because Segwit slightly increases the number of transactions that can be processed?
When the average fee is about 10 satoshis per byte, the problem is solved. The median transaction with the recommended fee costs about $3.50 now, I'd like to see that at about 10c.
fees amounted to mere pennies a year ago, I was pretty surprised when I saw fees rose to this extent.
I haven't really kept up with the bch / segwit news, but I'm starting to get the gist of it.
Woot! But BTC.com and ViaBTC still mine blocks under 1MB.
They have to set the maximum weight to 4 MB, otherwise this won't work which is why it's already less effective than it should be. Most miners are lazy / slow / incompetent or malicious. Take a look at the nice blocks that Antpool is mining:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/antpool.
so in a perfect world, if the miners got off their lazy asses and set to 4mb blocks, I'm assuming it goes
bigger blocks > more tx processed per block > eventually no unconfirmed transactions > back to lower fees
am I understanding this correctly so far?
explain the situation 
