Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.
You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.
Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.
In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.
I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).
Well, you were there for the actual discussion of the agreement, but it seems very impractical, and even a bad reading of the actual literal agreement to believe that a pursuit of a hardfork would be necessary prior to verifying how seg wit plays out first.. .
I mean, really, seg wit is not even actually live on the network, yet, so isn't it feasible that seg wit could really cause a lot of the points for an actual hard fork to be mute... (at least regarding to a raising of the blocksize limit for some time to come) and yeah of course, a large number of bitcoin holders would agree that if old coins somehow become more vulnerable due to changes in security or abilities to break cryptography, then those matters are going to be weighed to potentially justify a hardfork rather than a softfork... but also, breaking cryptography is much at the theoretical level, instead of actual demonstrations of such breaks of cryptography occurring, no?
Of course, nobody else in the community outside of that HK meeting has agreed to do anything, and is free to reject any proposal we come up with.
Sure, it is quite valuable that folks take their agreements seriously, and follow - up to the extent that it seems to be justified to engage in such follow-ups. And, I understand that has been your attempt, which is appreciated (at least by some of us in the space). You personally, have to come to those kinds of decision regarding whether you believe that you have done your due diligence, and no matter what (since you are in the public eye), you are going to receive criticism for your various positions and the justifications that you find important for such.
On the other hand, I think that a lot of folks are fairly excited to see how seg wit actually plays out.. when it does actually go live. It's one thing to theorize that something is going to go live, but likely yet another thing to find out how various developers are going to put it into play (likely in even unexpected ways) once it actually goes live and some time passes with it being live and developed upon.
