Please rename the title to fit the discussion. Some could argue that it doesn't matter who is behind the code, but it does even though Bitcoin is trustless. If there is going to be a switch of the developers, then we need people who are better than the current ones; not suspicious and controversial. Also the signatures by bad actors (e.g. Long) are worthless.
Beside that I never would run a client anymore where Gavin is head of, crooks like Marshall Long make me even more stay away from it.
And yes like someone else has already posted it seems to be the typical strategy of divide and conquer. Now where XT has failed this is attempt number two.
By the way has any of you guys read the report of Rand Corporation?
The report suggests that the U.S. Department of Defense should disrupt decentralized digital currencies to prevent
unprecedented global access to information and communication services that, at its core, is agnostic to the national security interests of the United States.The RAND report goes one step further and suggests that governments should use advanced technical means to actively disrupt virtual currencies. That includes terrorist groups, but also peaceful deployments of digital currencies by other non-state actors, and a general war on privacy and encryption.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1231/RAND_RR1231.pdf