...
When you say stuff like this, given the permissive open source software and development process what you're effectively saying is that developers should cooperate less and instead expend their efforts on more duplicated work.
I don't think that is a way to make Bitcoin successful. But I can think of a few parties that would benefit from that outcome...
Sorry, but I can't resist asking. In the reddit comment linked above, part of an old email to Hearn was quoted as saying:
Your recent actions to intentionally bring about a substantive split in the Bitcoin ledger is an attack on the Bitcoin system and risk causing extraordinary harm to its users. Your conduct towards me in public has been defamatory and unprofessional. Your presentation to the public is misleading, in particular conflating software forks with splitting the Bitcoin consensus state. I believe that you know that it is misleading and are doing so intentionally, but even if not, you are responsible for the misunderstandings that you have created. If what I am told about your affiliations is correct, your failure to disclose them clearly is unethical.
Is it known what "affiliations" are being referred to here? Is it the recent announcement that Hearn is joining R3CEV or something else?
(PS: It's good to see nullc posting again.)