The purpose of representation is to facilitate change.

It seems that a super majority of the miners working with a bunch of key exchanges and merchant payers to achieve a consensus (New York Agreement) on segwit2x is a form of representation.  The developers strongly opposing this direction is another form of representation.  I suspect the first form will end up carrying more weight but that is just my supposition. 

It does show whats going on in Bitcoin representation at this time though.

No, it would break the consensus rules, the founding principle and the community consensus.

Anddddd

It's totally unneccesary since a bitcoin is divisible by 100,000,000.  So if we get more people we can easily support selling them some and everybody has plenty of "satoshis" to spend. (A satoshi is 100,000,000th of a bitcoin). This way existing holders don't have to worry about inflationary coin generation making their coins worthless. It is ONE of bitcoins best feature.

Short answer: there is no proof either way.  

However, I don't think we are in a bubble. I think people are slowly clueing in to having a small part of their investment portfolio in bitcoin instead of or in addition to gold.  Bitcoin has limited coins like gold has limited mined weight. Bitcoin is drastically easier to transport and conceal then gold is. There is $8 trillion in gold holdings. Only $70 billion in bitcoin. As people figure this out in an exponential process (like flu spreading only slower) the relative market caps will close and bitcoin will be worth 100s of times what it is today. Hodl.

If you have serious money in bitcoin

1. Buy a hardware wallet.
2. Load it up with your coins
3. Buy a second hardware wallet
4. Initialize the second hardware wallet with the 12 word wallet recovery phrase from the first
5. Put them in separate safe deposits with the 12 word lists.
6. Don't keep any additional copy of the 12 list and don't memorize it.
7. Use a mobile wallet with different private keys if you need small change.'

This way its harder for the robber to use a $12 wrench as a cryptanalyst tool.

*you really only need one wallet+list in one box and list in the other but if you have enough coin to worry about this then why not have 2 wallets

doesn't take much to get a programmer-peer to get into Bitcoin.  Just tell him/her your personal experience.  That usually gets it done.

as far as the op's theory: yes the more news of any kind the more people will adopt bitcoin

some of this is because a non-trivial amount of people hold a fair amount of gold.

and gold stinks compared to bitcoin.  portability, security,  etc

I can put my hardware wallet in my go bag in case I ever have to get out of dodge

Assuming miner/exchange cohesion continues:

What do you think the Bitcoin as original Bitcoin use case(s) in 2018 is going to be. Do you think that there will be exchanges say in the US for that?
Peer-to-peer?
merchant agreements?

And how long is it going to take to get the new POW hash implemented to protect this coin from mischief? or is that not necessary?
And without the POW hardfork how is difficulty going to adjust in any rational time with the loss of the >90 percent of the miner hashpower?

Thanks for your comment.  This issue of relative chain support is exactly what I am trying to understand. I am having some difficulty seeing how the original chain keeps on trucking. But I certainly don't have a comprehensive understanding of the existing food chain.

I have been trying to clearly outline my assumptions so that they can be challenged.
For instance

Comments assume the miner/exchange cohesion continues.  (still applies)

Other Assumptions:

that the supporting exchanges will follow their stated position to follow the majority hash power.
defining a new core hash for POW, testing of it, deploying it and achieving significant usage will take finite, non-trivial, time.
a large fraction of bitcoin users are not super-knowledgeable about crypto currency algorithms
a large fraction of users get their bitcoins from majority hash following exchanges and not peer-to-peer at least for the next year.
a large fraction of users who spend their bitcoins with merchants do so by way of merchant support from companies like Bitpay.

I am willing to update/revise my assumptions based on discussion if appropriate.  I sure don't think I have all/most/many of the answers. On the other hand I don't think my assumptions are far off.  The most interesting one, in my opinion, is miner cohesion but I don't speak Chinese so I can't help there.

Coinbase, Bitpay, Gemini, and quite a large number of heavy hitters are spelled out in the New York Agreement.

relative to "who's calling what an alt coin"  It aint me babe.  Its (assuming miner/exchange cohesion continues) Coinbase, Gemini, Bitpay  and on and on that have tons of real customers who will be calling Bitcoin-from-segwit2x Bitcoin/BTC and to use their services a Core supported coin won't be that.  It will be like eth or ripple or bitcoin cash - AN ALTCOIN.

One actually needs some assumptions defined if you want to attempt to reasonably model the future progress of something

Comments are based on the assumption that current miners hold their signaled position.

Agree that hashpower  in terms of hashes per second can be much less, on a new hash algorithm, if there are no current asics available, and still be strongly credible.

However,

People are going to have to have the new Core selected hash scheme for POW quickly or the Core-ALT-Bitcoin will take quite a  while to get going.  If Core selects a new POW Hash scheme with the due diligence that it normally follows that would seem to take a fair amount of effort, test deployment, yada yada.   When are you thinking this is going to happen?  

I see the current Bitcoin wonderful success as a very large ocean liner, used by a lot of people.  Useage patters like oceanliners turn slowly.  So while there may indeed be longterm ways around the existing exchanges (and damn I hope their are),  I don't see that as having much effect in 2018 while Bitcoin-from-segwit2x rocks on and Core-ALT-Bitcoin is a low volume altcoin trying to get listed.

Thanks for the link. Watched the video.  I had read many of the highlights in the various bitcoin blogs but it was best to see it straight.

So if the x2hf succeeds then based on user demand for the solution from core either:

1.) POW hard fork - which would seem to me to result in a low hash power altcoin since BTC will be already in play at Coinbase, Gemini, Bitpay... based on their public statements of following the majority hash power or being actual NYA signatories.

or.

2) Core team walks away.

As far as 1.) I am trying to game out the world where this happens and I see a low hashpower altcoin as being a pretty anemic vehicle for the Core Team.  But perhaps they indeed could add some attractive new features that users would like and try to slowly build support and turn it into a real player.  The timing is going to be the tough thing here as it seems to take quite a while for a community to change based on features and the BTC-from-segwit2x coin would likely attract some level of qualified development to at least copy good open-source ideas and tack in alt/core's wind to forestall some of their momentum.

Another position from his talk that I take to heart is that the further you are from bitcoin core the more plausible bad ideas seem.  I have led software developments (not cryptocurrency) and I know full well that this is generally true.  I also know that it can not be effectively used as an overarching lever to convince a business  community or business leaders that their views must be subordinated. (when perhaps sometimes they should).

Same deal for my 4 bitcoin withdrawals from Gemini.
A small fee apparently covered by Gemini and I got the full requested bitcoin in my hardware wallet.
I vaguely recall reading somewhere in their terms that you get x no fee withdrawals like this but could be mistaken.

People who own Bitcoin bailing - indeed, but partially or more counterbalanced by new people that are finally cluing into wonderment of cryptocurrency and don't want to invest their money into coins controlled by a 23 year old with a parade of big banks behind him.  

And I have an inkling that if MAHF happens and things stabilize, that additional developers will want to be a part of such an amazing currency, even if some of the best in the world pass.

Of course Core could hard fork a POW change and get an alt coin registered with Coinbase, Gemini, Bitpay etc. possibly.  It might take a little while and I don't know if they really have the heart for a move like that or if it is just a passing thought.

Buyers sure like to buy coins from exchanges I think. I understand localbitcoin and other peer to peer but I thought exchanges were pretty key.
Users sure like to buy stuff from companies that use outsource mechanisms like Bitpay that are indicating (against pushback) that they will follow the majority hash chain.

I understand that you may stop using Bitcoin after the Segwit2xpocolus. But if it the Miners don't bail, that tons of normal users and buyers will still use the exchanges and the merchants with Bitpay and the like. Most of them won't even notice.

I doubt any other group is going to show up on short notice and prove sufficiently meritorious to you 

Fully agree with the amazing work that Core has done - much of it mindnumbingly beautiful.  But am also trying to suss out a realistic future.
Also would much personally prefer a solution where core, the exchanges, and the miners could agree on scaling but I don't always get my wishes.

Finally -> Users and Buyers power to destroy everything is a very interesting observation.  I have heard it alleged but I think that if the miners have solid peer to peer networking in place and the exchanges also peer directly with miners in this network that it would be hard to disrupt but alas there may be an angle that I am missing.

I think "thick whores" will do as a suitable synonym for "independent strong minded business men"
And as such they won't care about losing the core developers.  They will care about losing the exchanges but the exchanges are publicly pronouncing they will follow the hash majority - some even in SEC filings.

So I haven't figured out who the well-moneyed white knight exchange that matters is, that is going to tell them they are not necessarily following the hash majority.

Or is their another form of "money" other than exchanges that the miners will be influenced by?

Is your thinking that the miners will change their position based on their concern about losing the core developers? The miners seem like pretty independent and strong business personalities to me but maybe they have a more long term affinity for well laid crypto theory than I thought.

And suggesting POW change to them reminds me of how well our negotiations with N Korea are currently going.

If the miners stay together the exchanges are probably likely to stay because they need volume stability for their trades. (I would imagine).

The answer I often read is that assuming the MAHF is actually successfully accomplished then core will(?) switch to a new Proof of Work algorithm that will allow more small miners which will increase the difficulty of miner hard forks in the future.

The question is if the current MAHF happens, and the exchanges stay with the majority hash power, what will attract regular people to the legacy Bitcoin chain.

I guess if all this actually came to pass and the legacy POW hard fork happened there would be an effort to get legacy Bitcoin back on Gemini and Coinbase and Bitpay as a different coin.

Then the question becomes under what symbol would these exchanges present (ouch) since they have already reportedly committed to having the BTC symbol follow the existing majority hash power which would (in this scenario) be Segwit2x

Sounds faintly familiar to Ethereum Classic and Ethereum if the miners and exchanges stay with their public pronouncements.

Admittedly, I'm brand new here so maybe some expert hands can fill in better answers on this scenario end case.

If exchanges like Coinbase (NYA signer, I think) and Gemini (stated majority hash power follower) and Bitpay (majority hash power follower) all follow Segwit2x and continue to market it as Bitcoin won't that mean that the substantial majority of Bitcoin transactions are Segwit2x with a pull on some of the rest of the community to move over to be able to use these services?

What will be the key value points to attract new people to legacy Bitcoin?  (I know I entered Bitcoin through Gemini because I liked .25% and they seemed fairly solid)