you mad me laugh 
but still.. we will see. as i said i will just keep my bitcoins and see what happens. so from a monetary point of view there is not much that can happen to me (except that there is a timeframe where i cant use them...but hodling)
yes, thats true.
both sides have much to loose. but i like to go with bitcoin as intended by satoshi (-> bigger blocks)
btw eduffield has written recently that he has solved the bloat problem? do you know how?
but still.. we will see. as i said i will just keep my bitcoins and see what happens. so from a monetary point of view there is not much that can happen to me (except that there is a timeframe where i cant use them...but hodling)
The only way to truly win this game is not to play.
yes, thats true.
both sides have much to loose. but i like to go with bitcoin as intended by satoshi
(-> bigger blocks)btw eduffield has written recently that he has solved the bloat problem? do you know how?
Oh yes, we will see. You all are invited to my house for wine/beer/popcorn to watch when the Great Schism begins!
Satoshi intended bigger blocks, but we have no metric beyond guesswork to estimate a suitable magnitude of how much bigger.
Once we have actual experience with persistently full blocks, then we may better decide by how much/whether to increase their size.
Duffman's way to solve the bloat problem is to alienate most of his coin's users by suddenly forcing an unwelcome name/brand change.
J/K. His actual approach is even worse. He wants to use a 'two-tier' (IE trustful/semi-centralized) network to achieve scaling, thus recreating the security hole that Bitcoin so ingeniously obviated: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/
That approach is great for consumer retail applications and potentially provides a great substitute for precious BTC blockspace.
But as a store-of-value, it's a complete fail.