How probable is a contentious Hard-fork in the next few months?

[cjmoles]

How probable is a contentious Hard-fork in the next few months?

Are you doing anything to prepare for the coming shit-storm?

I'm watching intently....I am researching ways to profit off the event should it happen.  I have no real expectation that a hard fork may result but it's a very real possibility in my mind and I am devoting a few extra brain cells to the possibility.  I am certain that the community will make the wisest choice and bitcoin will preserve its value in any event, but I do see the opportunity to maybe take advantage of the possibility and I have my attention pointed in that direction.  I'm probably not alone <---- count on that!

[Guenter]

I guess miners who signal their support for BU do so, because larger blocks would be the better of two evils for them. SegWit would be good for Bitcoin and its users, but immediately lower the fees and thus be bad for the miners.
With bigger block size, miners will gain time, until network will be overloaded again (which is sure to happen and initially again good for the miners) and claims for a "real" solution will rise again...

[dinofelis]

I guess miners who signal their support for BU do so, because larger blocks would be the better of two evils for them. SegWit would be good for Bitcoin and its users, but immediately lower the fees and thus be bad for the miners.

The problem for them is that segwit is a soft fork.  That means that if ever it gets activated and 50% of miners applies it, it is FORCED upon all miners.   However, BU is a hard fork.  That is forced on nobody, as even a minority of miners can decide to go on the old chain.  They need to express sufficient support for BU, so that segwit doesn't happen.  And not sufficient support for BU, so that the hard fork seems without risk.  So that they can keep the small blocks of today.

In other words, support for BU from a miner is most probably just a vote against segwit, not a vote for BU.  But sufficient support for BU can make segwit impossible, which is the idea.  And nobody will DARE to make a HF with less than 90% actual support, which will not happen either --> status quo, what the miners actually want.

[Pettuh4]

How probable is a contentious Hard-fork in the next few months?

Are you doing anything to prepare for the coming shit-storm?

I don't think they are going to approve any fork(hard or soft) which will lead to Bitcoin being vulnerable to attacks so I'm not really preparing for any shit-storm, but the solution.

[Kryptowerk]

It depends on the real intent of SegWit mostly, imo. Seems to me there are some people involved that have their own agenda prioritized over the longevity of Bitcoin. For example saying that high tx fees (as high as $100!!!) are not an issue. Just LOL.
I really hope some kind of consensus will be found asap, but it's still probably a long way.
Personally I'd much prefere a BU "hard-fork" with 95% + adoption and Segqit can still be implemented ontop later if desired.

Btw, I feel like some people don't understand the meaning of hard-fork. It just means an UPDATE that is mendatory for anyone that wants to stay on the network. If you don't UPDATE, your chain will be sperate from the old one and cannot interact with the NEW SOFTWARE.
A BTC hardfork is NOT like the famous Ethereum DAO hardfork, where transactions were actually REVERSED.