If there exist entities that both care about Bitcoin and want to end it (and have sufficient motivation and resources)
...then they will succeed, and there's no technological solution we can implement that will stop them.
There is no substitute for growth as a defence against such attackers.
I thought I will bring back the discussion to the original topic (gold vs.
BTC), using this very interesting post that fully applies to both
BTC and gold. Gold has started this year pretty promising, yet the rally got capped pretty quickly as soon as there was the risk of putting the confirmation of the bottom on the charts. And down we go with the gold (see again the underlined sentence).
The goal in both cases XAU/XBT is to increase what is "sufficient" to subvert the currency. XAU has had thousands of years head start, and is mostly but not completely subverted.
Justusranvier correctly points out that growth is a helpful defense or that.
Bad forks are harmful to it.
Arguably, so also it is harmful for my showing how a proposal for a fork is bad. It is just not as harmful as would be the implementation of it.