Your perception is wrong. They have the support of bitcoin.org, r/bitcoin, this here forum of elevated discourse... you know, the important stuff.
It's about control, and control of information is a key component.
well there's r/BTC bitco.in and blockspace.org
these sites might become more important if the level of censorship hits a new level here. for now big blocker views are tolerated here.
Letters and agreements are trash, cash and hash is all that matters.
agreements != trash.
sure its not written in stone or anything, but its not like they signed a "worthless" 1MB4EVA agreement...
Seem to be from where I sit.
this is unclear,
but we know miners have threatened to use classic software and there is 5.6% hashing on classic right now.
in anycase we should agree minners running core software says nothing about whether or not they are in the 1MB4EVA camp.
most devs, outside of core, aren't in that camp
and i'd bet devs that contribute to core dont even put themselves in that camp
Guess what happens if a prospective dev hops in the Core_dev IRC room and eventually voices a plan outside the scope of Gregory's roadmap?
lol i bet its not THAT bad...
Of course not, they will add merge mined sidechains like segwit which takes actual blocksize up to a potential 4MB. It also gives a 75% economic discount to signature heavy transactions like LN opening, balancing, and closing transactions, coming soon®. Your node will be crippled in terms of network awareness, but will still function, we want you to come along.
other devs will peer review, make objections, more heated debate.. more stalling on scaling, only by then core is 9 months behind schedule, and everyone's starting to think THEY are the amateurs, some idiot will be like " I can fix TX malleability without all this other shit segwit comes with, aaaaannnnndddd its a softfork " BOOM in less then 30mins all of cores "support" vanishes, and progress is made.
This is fine.
cool.