On May 2017, we were invited to be for or against a phrase that read “I/we agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months”.
From a technical standpoint, we’ve always loved SegWit and we see a small increment (2mb) in the size of the block as a good idea as it would relieve pressure, lower fees and give some time to other more definitive scaling alternatives such as the Lightning Network to develop. That’s why we signed.
Nevertheless, we can’t pretend to be bitcoin “scaling experts”. We don’t believe in trying to force a change bitcoin’s core developers don’t feel safe with. The technical background of the team that currently collaborates on the core bitcoin project has an unprecedented level, we believe them to be, at least as a group, unbiased experts who deserve at least a voice on the subject.
Even though we would be happy to have moderately larger blocks to accommodate growing demand, we feel that Bitcoin needs (at least a majority) of bitcoin’s core developers’ support in order to do this responsibly. We haven’t seen this support and we don’t like what we currently see on the btc1 code repository in terms of technical considerations and open source collaboration.
We defend the interests of a growing Latin American user community that feels strongly against a new contentious hard fork.
All things said, if a contentious hard fork does happen, SurBTC could eventually list both assets but will allow for sure its users to at least withdraw both. Due to practical reasons, we will continue to list BTC, and we will incorporate B2X (or the names that catch on among the industry) later.