the recent activation of segwit, and the signaling for segwit2x were two completely independent things.
I think that you are lacking factual and logical integrity to make such claims of non-connectedness.
maybe so, but i'm still right.
the
activation lock-in of segwit was done via version bits, while signaling for NYA was done coinbase string ( less formal ).
there was no version bits that meant segwit2x support
there was bit4 for bip91 and bit1 for bip141
miners could have simply set bit4 on and not signal NYA in there coinbase, wouldn't REALLY of made a dif. so the fact that almost all miner bothered to signal NYA in there coinbase ( needlessly ) was a sign of good faith to make good on the NYA nothing more nothing less.
Your above statement is internally contradictory. I am not really disagreeing with you regarding the technical aspects of the signaling being a separate thing in each.. the signaling of Segwit2x being different from the signaling of BIP91 - however, you are suggesting that the Segwit2x did not mean anything in terms of contributing to the locking in of BIP91.. but yet at the same time, the signaling of segwit2x means that those folks signaling are serious about the 2x part.
maybe it is like beating a dead horse if we were to continue to go over this, because I am saying that you cannot infer the level of 2x support from the segwit2x signaling and you are saying that segwit2x is a decent indicator of 2x support... we seem to be at a dead end (logger heads)
Probably you are going to continue to see this "signaling of intention" to continue to drop, and if it remains on the websites (such as coin.dance), then it will likely shrink a lot more after segwit is actually active in the end of August - I don't see what purpose it serves because there is no triggering mechanism through that "intention" signaling.. Maybe in the future there will be a need to remove the segwit portion from such intention signaling and then see what level of support remains if there were only the 2mb hardfork in the signaling of intention?
i would assume miners will continue to signal NYA so long as they intent to fallow threw with the agreement (in full)
Yeah, but if signaling NYA does not commit them to anything, then it should have very little value... We will have to see what happens here, because our predictions are quite opposite.
I don't think it is necessary to respond to the remainder of your points because it seems that we are just coming to opposite conclusions based on our speculation regarding whether when the rubber hits the road is the bigblocker support going to be there... I say no, and you say yes. So, we disagree, even though I would not assert my position as an absolute because some matters could change, but as of now, based on what I see in terms of both facts and logic, I really doubt that the material and relevant miner support for 2x HF is as great as you are asserting that support to be.
. 
