What do we know of the proposed Segwit2MB compromise?

[grabberfish]

Ever since we had the Tweet from Charlie Shrem that an agreement had been made, and his advice to "buy bitcoin", there has been a flurry of random speculation and very little real communication. Once again, we hear of back-room deals being struck by industry insiders, but nothing solid for the community to get behind. That Barry Silbert is front and centre of this agreement gives me some cause for concern. But let us look at what is being proposed:

• Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
• Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months

Looking at the dev list email from Sergio, we can see that this is still a soft-fork of SegWit with a promise to deliver a block size increase.

This means that segwit would be activated before 2Mb: this is inevitable

So what we have here is the same agreement as signed by Blockstream & Co. in Hong Kong, all those months ago.

SegWit is not a scaling solution.

We need a max block size increase, if not simply removed altogether. What are we now being told has been agreed? Exactly what Core has been pushing for only now with a reduced activation threshold. So, please, tell me: What's so great about this agreement?

From where I stand, this looks like a total sell-out by some of the people we have most respected.

Roger - we can see that Bitcoin.com have signed up to this agreement. What made you sell out switch sides and start supporting SWSF? I do not mean to seem harsh about this, I'm calling it as I see it. Please do explain where I might be in error.