I agree with your concerns.
It would be nice to see some indication that the various parties with stake and reputation (miners, devs, businesses, big holders) were communicating and negotiating.
Currently, the prediction markets are saying there's a 50% probability of a BTC hardfork in 2017 (source).
A contentious hardfork will be brutal for business. Miners, holders, businesses alike will suffer should it ever come to that.
More negotiation, more compromising. Maybe package a SegWit+8mb combined hardfork, with the 8mb hard fork code being reviewed and fixed for bugs by the more experienced devs from bitcoin-core repo. Perhaps renaming "SegWit" to "PandaBlocks" or "DragonChain" or "JihanPresentsBitcoinAccelerated". The point is, we need to find a deal that appeals to everyone and preserves the integrity of the core protocol.
I want this to work. Anybody can reach me privately and I will do my best to get you what you want. Reach out to me firstname.lastname@example.org , please encrypt your email using my PGP key, keyID = 331B6406, (and please provide your own key, or another secure method of contact).
Any mining pool operators, devs, big hodlers, concerned businesses in the BTC world, PLEASE reach out to me, I want to be your advocate, all of you. I have eschaton-overshadowing incentives to preserve and expand Bitcoin's reach.
/u/bdarmstrong, /u/memorydealers, /u/theymos, /u/bitjson, /u/bitmain (inactive account?), /u/adam3us, and ALL OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, let's talk and (hopefully) formulate something like a plan. I'll bring the resources of my relatively small ($ 2 mil annual revenue) unnamed company to the table if it would help to execute a plan to amicably resolve the SegWit/8mb issue.
Freenode IRC Channel that I've registered, for anyone interested in helping find amicable solutions to the issues discussed: #BtcNegotiate
Channel logs: https://notebin.cc/1kdbou2efi8
Notes (2017/02/02 04:20 GMT)
Some notable individuals showed up (check the logs linked above).
Much contention, some trolling.
A useful paper studying the effects of a blocksize increase was linked: On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains
It was suggested to initiate another formal Consensus.
I suggested making it binding (requiring participants to each place large sums of money on deposit with a reputable counterparty, not to be returned to them until the full consensus had been implemented in Bitcoin's mainnet).
[My thoughts]: It looks like we need more data (or at least model-derived) + well-informed analys on the effects of various scenarios on Bitcoin's long-term market cap and other attributes (decentralization, uncensorability, etc):
Studies that shed light on effect of having fewer nodes on long-term market cap (due to BU larger blocks)
Studies on effects of maintaining status quo
Studies on possible outcomes of hard-forking, their likelihoods, etc.