This is code that has been submitted to Core for their review. A hard fork would only occur if this code were implemented and 75% mining power agreed. This would be followed by a 28-day grace period after which time older clients would not be compatible with the network.

I think this proposal will be given serious consideration. For all intents and purposes, this is the "Satoshi BIP." It's what Satoshi would have done in this situation.

If Bitcoin forks (and especially with 75% vs 25% of the network) there is going to be a (negative) effect on the price. The network will essentially be damaged due to a split. Just imagine the great situation once media starts making articles with titles such as "Bitcoin split in two", "Confusion/panic in the Bitcoin community", etc.

Because of various assumptions based on propaganda, one of them being "Blockstream is evil". If Blockstream is evil, then Segwit must be evil too.

If Bitcoin forks (and especially with 75% vs 25% of the network) there is going to be a (negative) effect on the price. The network will essentially be damaged due to a split. Just imagine the great situation once media starts making articles with titles such as "Bitcoin split in two", "Confusion/panic in the Bitcoin community", etc.

Because of various assumptions based on propaganda, one of them being "Blockstream is evil". If Blockstream is evil, then Segwit must be evil too.

...people realized Bitcoin Core main plan is basically stop possibility of further Bitcoin adoption... 

[–]adam3us

There is also lightning which should come online pretty soon now (before IBLT & weak-blocks say).

And a number of incremental things that can be soft-forked much faster into seg-wit with it's new extensibility. Like schnorr multisigs that compact 2 of 2 or n of n multiSigs into the space of a single signature. We should be able to estimate the throughput boost from that based on the multiSig ratios that go into the 1.75-2MB estimate.

There are other things also like elidable pubkeys so miners can choose to tradeoff validation cost (from loss of batch verifiability) for more compact space. The elided public keys can be reconstructed with a small CPU cost.

Some other things are possible also.

People should just calm down and talk with developers.

All in there is a fantastic roadmap for scale and layer2 things coming online that really move the needle even for new high scale transaction use cases. Not a time to be doing ugly bandaids that actually make scale worse mid-term and risk alienating the people with the expertise to make the scale happen.

...bad intentions...   

...worse for Bitcoin than Mike leaving...   

https://medium.com/@WasintMe3/everything-you-never-wanted-to-know-about-blockstream-s-new-boss-pricewaterhousecoopers-716d46d3257b#.fqfokdtvk

...damage for Bitcoin...

The majority do not want what you want, or the majority that owns a lot of coins. Look at it whatever way you want. The roadmap is better than anything you will ever see from newbies such as found in Classic. It features increases in capacity, improvements to the infrastructure, while on the other hand Classic has nothing (aside of a stoner, a developer of mediocre skill; should I go on?).

No, this is propaganda. Everyone stated being obsessed on how Blockstream would ROI. After they start looking into ways of doing that, they're also bad. There is no rational reason for the move away from Core, none. If you are unable to get your way then the other party is bad?

Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. Some felt frustrated that core devs had been ignoring their demand, and this sense of frustration contributed to the conspiracy theory, which was explicitly expressed there: The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.
Some expressed the view that while SigWit has its potential, it is something never been tried before, therefore should be given more time for thorougher test; worse, some felt that it represents a development that has deviated from Satoshi's vision and eventually, led to increased complexity of the protocol to such degree that it would be forbidding to most startups.
Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

BTW denying majority do not want change is completly out of reallity, and they are not sockpupets, just check CMO of HaoBTC for example he is talking about real and really prominent Chinese Bitcoiners with overwhelming sentiment for real change, not just to 2 MB:

There is still hope for mankind if BIP 102 fails.

As bitcoin becomes inundated and infiltrated by companies like Blockstream and PWC, alternative currencies will learn from these breaches and compromises and build stronger systems to prevent Satoshi's original protocol from being perverted, co-opted, and corrupted.

I had not long ago given up entirely on Bitcoin after discovering the depths of its infection, but BIP102 has given me new-found hope. If somehow this proposal can escape the paid puppets and prevail, it will buy more time for the community to pull the pesky corporate weeds from its Core.

~~

Yes but I feel its really is Blockstream/Core that is creating the uncertainty through their 1. poor communication, 2. poor transparency, and 3. inflexibility.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.

As far as Blockstream not profiting from LN.  Ok, you can make that argument all you want but until its clear how Blockstream will profit, things are naturally suspicious.

Btw, I apologize if my yesterday my remarks about your attitude seemed like an attack.  I just think you are stuck thinking in one way about this, but we all have our biases.

That is the really nice thing about Bitcoin - being algorithmic it doesn't care that you are frustrated (and you should perhaps go out and find someone to help relieve that problem).

They are just a single company. Do you care about how every other Bitcoin startup is going to profit from Bitcoin? That's not your concern unless you're directly related to them (this is where the bias is coming from).