Why can't core derail the Segwit2X by launching the Bitcoin Hardfork ?

[SidharthMalhotra]

Several Core developers began working on a safe hard fork proposal. The game theory behind a renewed push, right now, would give a decisive blow to 2X supporters.

I know a lot of people (including me) are against any hard fork. But I also know it's probably going to happen sooner or later. Why not use it to be done with the poisonous BCASH and 2X movements? It would be a win for everyone who loves Bitcoin.

[slyfox]

Several Core developers began working on a safe hard fork proposal. The game theory behind a renewed push, right now, would give a decisive blow to 2X supporters.

I know a lot of people (including me) are against any hard fork. But I also know it's probably going to happen sooner or later. Why not use it to be done with the poisonous BCASH and 2X movements? It would be a win for everyone who loves Bitcoin.

I’m not an expert but a hard fork is the last option, the devs do not want to use it unless they are forced to do it, besides if they are the ones that hard fork the chain, then they will be the ones creating an altcoin and they want to follow the original chain, so if the segwit2x miners want to fork let them.

[AgentofCoin]

...
I know a lot of people (including me) are against any hard fork. But I also know it's probably going to happen sooner or later. Why not use it to be done with the poisonous BCASH and 2X movements? It would be a win for everyone who loves Bitcoin.

He who splits first, loses first.
He who splits second, loses second.
He who splits third, loses third.
But he who never splits, wins forever.

Hardforks should only occur with high Community Consensus.
Anything else is always an attack upon this system type.

Preemptive forks should only occur as a response to an immediate
danger or attack upon the full network, such as governmental direct
intervention or the like. SegWit2x is a corporate attack type that
doesn't have much long term threat potential, so there is no point
in forking before their fork. We just observe and wait now.

[aleksej996]

Because of the main problems with S2X is that it is a hard fork. Devs prefer a softfork, not only so other nodes don't need to update, but because hardforks shouldn't be that easy, this is security of the Bitcoin.

[slyfox]

...
I know a lot of people (including me) are against any hard fork. But I also know it's probably going to happen sooner or later. Why not use it to be done with the poisonous BCASH and 2X movements? It would be a win for everyone who loves Bitcoin.

He who splits first, loses first.
He who splits second, loses second.
He who splits third, loses third.
But he who never splits, wins forever.

Hardforks should only occur with high Community Consensus.
Anything else is always an attack upon this system type.

Preemptive forks should only occur as a response to an immediate
danger or attack upon the full network, such as governmental direct
intervention or the like. SegWit2x is a corporate attack type that
doesn't have much long term threat potential, so there is no point
in forking before their fork. We just observe and wait now.

Man that is poetry, I'm going to keep that and remember it, I love it, is it yours? Or did you read it somewhere?