One thing I don't get is why people oppose block size increases irrespective of the 2x fork. Whining about control over the network is one thing but I see too many people opposing the idea altogether, seemingly without understanding that block size increases will be required in the future (why the "muh decentralization" mouth-breathers are clueless) or Bitcoin will max out its capacity (again).

As for who controls the network, it's already the miners. It's always been the miners. Coinbank, surprisingly, is exactly right: the Bitcoin that gets the most hash power will be the "real Bitcoin" and the other one will be relegated to a name change. (Yes, I know it's actually Coinbase. Coinbank is more accurate.)

I would be surprised if Segwit Bitcoin survives at all. Miners have an incentive to support it: more transactions, more fees collected. Lower fees, but as the blocks become strained again it will result in a net gain in mining revenue. Users have an incentive to support it: with increased capacity comes lower fees, so it could actually start to be used in real life instead of just between wallets and exchanges.

Transaction capacity is everything for a payment network; a currency's market cap is directly limited by it. It's too bad it's not Segwit 8x, then Bitcoin might actually stand a chance against 2nd generation innovators ¯_(ツ)_/¯