They say that in November there will be one more fork of bitcoin, but this is not accurate.
Wrong. It is accurate. Anyone running btc1 will fork 90 days after Segwit activates, which is in November.
so what's it all about? what happens in november ? it it for just development like better transactions or another altcoin like Bitcoin Cash will get in to market ?
I understand that much of these hardforks and softforks and upgrades can become confusing, yet it seems to me that you are conflating three events around August 1, and asking for a comparison of what would or could happen in November as compared with what happened surrounding the August 1 events.
Some people engage in conflation in these events on purpose because they are trying to spin and confuse the bitcoin community, and so it is not necessarily appropriate to blame some innocent bystanders who might become confused and engaged in the same conflating of these events - because who has time to follow a lot of these activities - and I admit that I have a come across a large number of recent events in this scaling debate in which I become confused too - partly because of the conflating that is taking place on an ongoing basis (intentionally or not).
Let me see if I can unconflate some of this, to clarify somewhat, and to respond to your question(s).
In mid 2015, various big blockers started arguing and asserting that bitcoin needed to have a hardfork in order to increase the size of the blocksize limit from 1mb to 2mb, and through the last two years they built a following of whiners who argued the technical necessity for such an increase of the blocksize from 1mb to 2mb through a hardfork and they also had some quasi-hidden agenda to change the governance of bitcoin (to make these kinds of changes easier in the future).
These big blocker nutjob folks have been prominent in circles involving proposals of bitcoin xt, then bitcoin classic, then bitcoin unlimited, then emergent consensus, then bitcoin cash and currently segwit2x. A lot of these are the same folks and building a whining following based on desires to change bitcoin governance while acting as if there is some kind of technical justification for their various proposed changes that play on the same fabricated theme suggesting that bitcoin is broken and that bitcoin needs an upgrade and an ability to more easily upgrade.
In late 2015, segregated witness was proposed by one of the core developers and was initially quite noncontroversial as a kind of scaling solution that fixed some other issues in bitcoin too (most widely known fix was transaction malleability), but as time passed, segwit became a kind of political football to be used by the bigblocker nutjobs and to argue as if segwit were controversial when it was not (like calling black white for a long time and after a while people start to believe it).
In any event, segwit was coded and tested through 2016 and was able to be signaled by miners to be activated starting in November 2016. In other words, after 11/16 as long as segwit signaling reached 95% for a 2 week period under BIP141, then segwit would lock in and then activate in the subsequent 2 weeks.
Largely, through the summer of 2017, the signaling of segwit bounced between 25% and 35% through; however in April 2016 and in May 2017, there were meetings of largely the bigblockers that proposed ways to come to agreements to accomplish both segwit that would be tied to a 2x increase in the blocksize limit (aka hong kong agreement (HKA) and New york agreement (NYA)); however, the agreements of those meetings were neither binding on core nor officially processed through any BIP that would be "officially" approved and allow for an adoption and consensus mechanism to achieve both segwit and 2x. The fact of the matter was that neither the HKA nor the NYA had widespread support - even though the bigblocker whiners frequently asserted that they had wide-spread support - yet likely a fatal flaw with both "agreements" was that they were lacking in any kind of mechanism to truly and unambiguously demonstrate that they had support by causing some mechanism that would bind adoption (still no software to run that would cause binding support, either).
One of the first usages of the August 1 date was through BIP 148 (user activated softfork) that would have caused a mechanism to attempt to force miners to signal segwit in order that segwit could achieve the required 95% signaling (and such segwit activation would not include any 2x requirement). In about June 2017, there was a BIP 91 that caused a path forward for reconciling the various roads to pending segwit activation and the 2x increase by causing a mechanism to activate segwit first; however, BIP 91 did not provide any mechanism for the 2x portion of any prior discussions and/or agreements... so even though it referred to NYA (and implicitly HKA), there still was no binding mechanism regarding the 2x portion.
For a variety of reasons, BIP91 became very popular including that it allowed segwit first and that if successful it seemed to avert a need to attempt a forcing of segwit through BIP148... So the passage of BIP91 largely caused the August 1 date to be a non-issue in terms of segwit because it became fairly clear that segwit was going to activate through the terms of BIP91. And, like I mentioned earlier, BIP91 seemed to provide a binding path forward for segwit, yet remained ambiguous about any kind of 2x requirement (especially because the reference to underlying possible mechanisms of the HKA and the NYA, did not have any kind of binding mechanisms and were largely ambiguous at best).
Well, it seems that in July 2017 the hardfork bigblocker nutjobs saw the writing on the wall that segwit was going to get locked in and activated; however, they could not clearly and unambiguously cause a road forward for either 2x, nor hardforking nor changes in BTC governance mechanisms. Therefore, they decided to ambush and perform a renegade and short notice hardfork - namely BCH, and they coopted the August 1 date, and likely they engaged in such renegade forkening because they considered such a move as a last chance to take advantage of ambiguities regarding the extent to which segwit, by itself, would be successful and ambiguities regarding the extent to such segwit sufficiently resolve any scaling issues that they had been fabricating for the past two years - in order to attempt to achieve their real goals, to undermine bitcoin's governance mechanisms.
So in the end, the August 1 BCH hardfork and the proposed upcoming November segwit2x hardfork, are likely to turn out very similarly, as renegade attempts to hardfork bitcoin and cause confusion in an attempt to change bitcoin's governance.
Surely, since the proposed November segwit2x hardfork is in the future, no one can really say with anything approximating 100% certainty how the hardfork is going to turn out; however, at this point, it seems that bigblocker nut job whiners are likely to engage in such a gamble because they continue to NOT get their way through attempts to work within the system (and maybe they continue to see no advantages to attempt to work within the system to attempt to make changes within rather than acting like terrorist renegades). So, sure, they are seeming likely to gamble a November hardfork, and, at this time, it seems that such a hardfork gamble in November (segwit2x) is quite likely (if it happens) play out in similar ways to the BCH hardfork - and to be recognized as renegade, minority, inferior and continued attacks on bitcoin, including largely the fact that these bigblockers want to attempt to change bitcoin's governance.
So, in the end, the odds seem to be pretty decent (at least the market seems to reflect that) the main bitcoin is likely to continue to dominate in these new dynamic of renegade hardforks - even when the renegade hardforks (such as the one that could happen in November-ish or sooner or have more of them) are attempts to dilute bitcoin in various ways, so if they are going to be successful and to really take over the real bitcoin, then they are likely going need to convince and inspire a larger spectrum of the bitcoin community to follow them (more than merely miners, but developers, consumers, investors, vendors and merchants).
