Thanks a lot MrSunshine for taking on the bullish news posting duties. If it were not for your efforts, then it is quite likely that this thread would have become very inactive - so it is really nice that someone (such as yourself) is willing to step up to the plate to provide a great contribution for the rest of us.
Regarding this above-linked article, I question the extent of its bullishness and even its addressing of the current issues.
Yeah, it provides some decent historical context; however, it seems to be caught up upon some kind of lauding of the segwit2x agreement and the bigblocker nutjobs who are threatening and disrupting bitcoin in various ways.
So, if I am reading the article correctly, it is suggesting that the end of the supposed "civil war" would be if the segwit2x agreement were followed as some kind of meaningful compromise.
The fact of the matter is that even if segwit2x ended up being a spark and/or catalyst that facilitated the likely locking in and upcoming activation of segwit , such segwit2x is not really doing anything for the current threats that are being lobbied in the bitcoin space, and the article does not talk about the most prominent current and imminent threat from the bigblocker nutjobs who never seem to be satisfied.
Currently, we have what appears to be a bullish and decent path forward for bitcoin through the locking in of BIP91 - and the segwit lockin and activation to follow.
But no, this is not enough for the nutjobs, they want to hardfork anyhow because this path does not seem to be enough for them and they likely feel that if this path plays out, they are not going to have as much of an opportunity to potentially bring miners with them because once segwit is activated, then the 2x hardfork bullshit will likely be very much unnenecessary.. even more unnecessary than currently and even harder for the 2x hardforker nutjobs to justify - even if we look at their true agenda is not even the 2x hardfork, they merely want to be able to have more influence in the direction of bitcoin (even though they are largely lunatics who don't want to play within existing governance systems and to do necessary hardwork within established governance systems)....
so, my point is that the above-linked article seems to take the side of the nutjob bigblockers, as if they are putting forth reasonable "compromises," while ignoring their ongoing moving of the goalposts and changing of the agenda - that is reflected in their ongoing and unceasing hardfork threats.
