Unpopular solution: Agree to 2mb HF written by Core and properly tested

I know compromises aren't popular here, but hear me out.The miners state that they only want the 2mb hard fork as agreed by Core and miners in the HKA 20 months ago (source). If they get that, they're content leaving Core in control of the repo.The most compelling argument against the 2mb HF is that it's an untested and dangerous HF. Totally understandable.Can Core and Miners agree to postpone the HF until Core can write their own 2mb code and properly test it?Set a HF deadline, such as 12 months. This will give the Miners larger blocks, and it will give all of us a much safer hard fork.I know a lot of us won't want to compromise. It's become a dirty in this community, and especially in this sub. We make threats with UASF and call ourselves heros. When the miners make a similar threat, they're labeled terrorists, and therefore, we shouldn't negotiate with them.The miners aren't terrorists. They are leveraging their strength for personal gain. That's the Libertarian way. That's the free market philosophy. Besides, they were already promised 2mb blocks during the HKA. Putting myself in their shoes, I can understand their disposition.Miners have a financial interest in Bitcoin's success. They are on our side. However, there are powerful groups who want Bitcoin to fail. We have people on both sides of this debate who demand the HF and argue adamantly against any compromise, and I have little doubt that some of these are agent provocateurs. Compromise is a good thing.What have we to gain by a compromise?2mb blocks. This would improve bitcoin confirmation times and lower network fees. Segwit helps; Segwit + 2mb would help much more.Avoid the contentious hard fork. Some of us think the fork won't affect "Bitcoin." That's naive. If the miners stop mining the Core bitcoin, transactions will take weeks to confirm. Businesses will move to competing coins, and users will follow. Bitcoin may never recover in terms of public image, user adoption, or market share.What have we to lose by a compromise?2mb blocks. This would increase the network and storage requirements for nods as well as lower network fees which will result in more spam.A psychological/pride loss for negotiating with a group who we are in disagreement. We've labeled this group as terrorists to dehumanize them, and that makes it all the more difficult to reach across the table to shake their hand.We're treating Bitcoin like a religion.In a religion, there is no allowance for compromise. Our community is ripping apart over an argument about a number changing from 1 to 2. I'm oversimplifying, I know, but I do it to prove a point. Bitcoin isn't sacred. We shouldn't be treating this like a religion. We shouldn't be arguing about what Satoshi wanted or intended. Satoshi isn't Jesus.We should be treating it like a business.Miners are workers. They are providing a service and we pay them for it. The Miners want to negotiate a change in working conditions. If they go on strike, they will lose money, but so will we. It will take weeks to train scabs to do the work. If the strike takes too long, we will lose customers, possibly permanently. The price of their demands are insignificant compared to the cost of weeks of lost business, and if they get improved working conditions, production will increase while costs decrease.Let's negotiate with the workers. Core writes the 2mb HF update and tests it. S2x Miners give Core enough time to write the update and test it properly. Everyone wins. via /r/Bitcoin http://bit.ly/2y3yiLm