Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.

Incorrect.
Not vaporware, code is available, source:
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/693136607659069441

Also there are already 48 nodes running, source:
http://xtnodes.com/

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

Hardfork to crash economy - The proposed block size increase hard fork is dangerous for many reasons. Large blocks will be spammed and full from the start.

There is no proof whatsoever about what you are saying.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

Hardfork freeze coins - No matter the fork, the weak chain will be destroyed. This means the weak chain coins will become frozen, speculation will be impossible.

The "weak chain" will quickly die, but you will able to move your coins to the "stronger chain" any time. No problem with that.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

Hardfork cause loss of funds - If user pays during a hard fork, the payment can be reorganized and lead to the loss of funds.

I don't think the words you are saying mean what you think they mean, please elaborate.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

Classic cannot VISA Scale - There is no proposal to reach 1000 transactions per second. Currently Bitcoin process 4 tps, Classic offers 8 tps.

We don't need such proposal currently. Bitcoin does not need to scale to VISA levels tomorrow. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

Spam and 1MB cap are temporary - Because the "stress test" never ends, so will the blocks be forever full. Spam cannot be detected because wallets are anonymous.

Now, this is some kind of hardcore extreme bullshit.
Explain in detail what you mean by "spam cannot be detected" and "stress test never ends" and what does it have to do with Bitcoin Classic or hard fork.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

0-confirmations are unsafe - 1% of blocks become orphaned, in this situation even 1-confirmed transaction can be reversed.

0 confirmation transactions were never ever safe.
So what is your point ?

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

1MB is no kind of satoshi nakamoto "rule".
1MB is simply a temporary anti-spam measure.
Everybody knows this and Core developers also know this. Some of them are just too deep in shit with their heads to admit it.

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on January 29, 2016, 10:51:14 PM

1MB +fee fast confirmation - With proper fees, transactions get confirmed without any delay

Is $50 a "proper fee" ?

Once the network starts congesting, not only will the fees go up significantly, but Bitcoin transactions will become unreliable. This is why RBF was created by Peter Todd for Bitcoin Core. The only way you can make transactions fast & reliable with 1MB blocks is using RBF.

But RBF is fatally flawed itself, check this out:
RBF is optional for sender (opt-in), but not optional for receiver.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42m4po/its_a_sad_day_when_core_devs_appear_to_understand/
2. especially: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42lhe7/usability_nightmare_rbf_is_sort_of_like_writing_a/
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zju81/rbf_optin_a_man_walk_in_a_bar_order_a_coffe_drink/

In short: You can choose whether to send RBF, you can choose whether to mine RBF, but you cannot choose whether you receive it or not.
"RBF is sort of like writing a paper check, but filling in the recipient's name and the amount in pencil so you can erase it later and change it." - /u/rowdy_beaver (on reddit.com/r/btc).

RBF could have the potential to completely destroy 0-conf transactions widely & successfully used today.

RBF / Bitcoin Core is a disaster waiting to happen.