forking is a tricky term and the concepts depend on how you define it. hard forks incorporating new innovations are fine as long as they are truly needed and the only effort needed is to download new software. but if it also forces participants to dig out cold wallets and make financial transfers to new coins or new sidechains, that is a big problem. many ppl will get left behind and will lose money.
As Zangelbert Bingledack defined it, existing participants would not need to do anything. They could just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out, their ledger position guaranteed.
yeah, but to rocks point, we shouldn't want uncertainty in a money created by numerous forks causing constant choices. ppl don't want that headache. when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between). one group is going to lose money as one chain continues onward and eventually peters out as it becomes clear that the other chain is superior. that would not be good as that would result in losses. the reason i think this happens is that when it comes to the network of global money, i think the market will converge to one out of convenience, efficiency, and simplicity. sort of how the USD has been outright adopted by many countries today. it's easy.
hard forks are not to be created lightly. i realize that is not what ZB was advocating.