Hard forks aren't dangerous. Monero has scheduled hard forks all the time. It's the best and cleanest way to upgrade. > The biggest difference Segwit2x would m

Hard forks aren't dangerous. Monero has scheduled hard forks all the time. It's the best and cleanest way to upgrade. > The biggest difference Segwit2x would make in centralization is the fact that block propagation latency is already very slow, and if it gets to over 10 minute for the whole network, the network can split. Yet there's no research to remotely suggest a meager increase to 2MB would have any effect. Compact blocks and Xthin (and recently Graphene) also improves on this immensely. > Bitcoin is an amazing store of value, and those of us who hold the currency wouldn't accept any risk of increased centralization Typical black and white thinking. Bitcoin must have a primary use case that's not a store of value otherwise it will crash down when no new money is injected. > just because non-holders want low transaction fees Yeah because non-holders are the ones who want to use Bitcoin as was always intended. Pure holders are only in for the speculation. The title of Bitcoin's whitepaper is "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" not "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Store of Value System".