There are appeals to authority and ad hominem within this piece, only point two is effected by an appeal to authority and ad hominem, point one, five and six I have already responded to separately.
Ad Hominem:
"Full of lies and desperation of someone who risked his entire reputation on something and lost; and now strops around like a petulant child."
"Mike claims miners will switch to BIP101 in December if Core doesnt release a block size increase, this is a complete lie." 2/ how is that and ad hominem?
he shows disagreement and then follows with an explanation
"Clearly Mike is trying a game of poker here to frighten people." 2/ yep, can be considered an ad hominem, though it's not an argument, rather a conclusion
Appeal to Authority:
"Truth is miners have outright rejected any controversial change that does not include Bitcoin Core where the vast majority of technical experts reside." 2/ where's the appeal? it simply states the truth as it is currently
"downstream users, rely on Bitcoin Core because they know it has the expertise and stability. XT has nothing"
"Companies are not going to follow a renegade fork and in the end, they are going to trust the technical expertise of those who can provide long term support and have a proven track record in the field." I have struck out parts that were not among these 6 points (I have specifically asked for fallacies among these points).