It shows how bad things can be if you don't use development practices that are appropriate for the project, but it doesn't show anything at all about how actual bitcoin code is developed. This is about a fork (that never ended up happening).
no, there is the open market. 2x futures traded well below btc's value.
from https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x... :
"Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean blocksize upgrade at this time."
The real problem with segwit2x is that the consensus was dropping and was trending toward a very weak level. It had strong consensus for long enough to do a switchover, as far as I understand, but it didn't take the opportunity and then people eventually started to change their minds.
If 95% of miners wanted something, but nobody else did, then every single block they mined would be ignored as invalid by the rest of the users in the ecosystem. They'd be foregoing huge profits by the minute, and inevitably would start defecting in ever-increasing numbers.
The only way a hard-fork ever has a prayer of taking over the main chain is if it gets implemented in the most popular software programs used on the network (e.g. Bitcoin Core). This is what killed Segwit2X, despite seemingly having massive miner support. Note that the miners immediately capitulated; such easy capitulation does not lend much weight to the importance of the 90% figure. They're full of hot air.