I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.

About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.

No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus.

i dont think the solution is classic agenda or blockstreams.

id prefer 100 developers to release an implementation that is nothing more than a 2mb block increase..
where all implementations can talk to each other as they are all the same but allow programmers to then do their own independant glamour features to the GUI (such as segwit) but not messing with consensus hard rules ..
that way there is more than one source of the same hard code. allowing freedom of choice while still being part of the network and able to b innovative with the softer stuff

that way it defeats both debates of banker control(classic r3) and centralized and dictator roadmaps(blockstream)

then the millions of users can actually get 2mb block buffer to allow capacity growth naturally.. without getting involved in the band camp debate

Consensus is never going to happen anymore. Bitcoin has gotten too big with too many players with different agendas to reach consensus on the level they want it.

Look in your local government for example, how many parties are there? The same is happening in bitcoin. Different parties with different opinions not wanting to work together or agree with eachother.

why exactly can't a hard fork be a solution? i don't understand your reasoning.