That's certainly true, but I also tend to think that the scaling debate is overblown. Bitcoin, from the outset, has been designed to generate consensus around a majority chain. Forks are ultimately the source of Bitcoin's security and its development. If there's any elegance to Bitcoin, however brutal, it's here.
There are several approaches to scaling Bitcoin that should work. The debate focuses on risk aversion and which will be best. In the end, though, any untenable situation should be quickly resolved as a majority choose the least painful option. The New York Agreement appears to be this in action, and represents a major shift in the community as a new client may become the default.
Many have compared Bitcoin to TCP: it's not great, but it's good enough to become a standard. I tend to agree with this view, though there are many well-founded concerns.
The second part of the nya has a hand waving requirement of 80,000 or so nodes uninstalling their existing node client software and installing a new unreviewed and untested node client three months after the segregated witness component is activated. I don't even know how that would be possible even if it was a change that everyone wanted, which they don't.
Reckon the first component is going to happen but there is very little chance of the hard-fork part.
There are several approaches to scaling Bitcoin that should work. The debate focuses on risk aversion and which will be best. In the end, though, any untenable situation should be quickly resolved as a majority choose the least painful option. The New York Agreement appears to be this in action, and represents a major shift in the community as a new client may become the default.
Many have compared Bitcoin to TCP: it's not great, but it's good enough to become a standard. I tend to agree with this view, though there are many well-founded concerns.