No, I am not. This has nothing to do with controversy. A hard fork, by definition, entails creating a new network that is incompatible with the old one. The intention of a hard fork is for users of the old network to migrate to the forked network. There is no propaganda in that, whatsoever.
Supporting Core's conservative method of rigorous analysis and testing, or their overall roadmap, or simply supporting an implementation that retains Bitcoin's consensus rules, is not anything you can blame Core for.
1. hardfork code has been publicly available since last year, meaning core is not conservative. because they ignore code available for over a year to quickly push something only finalised a few weeks ago..
2. core is not retaining consensus rules.. old nodes cant validate segwit, so old nodes are not part of the consensus. they are just blindly confused into not caring what the data is by using the flag that tells them to ignore it.
3. core is not retaining consensus rules.. 4mb blockweight is a total different rule than maxblocksize.. but again by disabling consensus(consent) they are changing rules without needing consent.
4. the road map belongs to core, the segwit code is a core feature and core are avoiding accepting hard fork code so much they are throwing devs out of the core group
You can blame the lack of convincing arguments by fork proponents for the lack of support to fork. You could also probably blame Ethereum, which has likely scared much of the community away from the risks of hard forks.
the REKT and fake doomsdays stories to sway people started way before ethereum
"Consensual [hard] fork" is a strange term. Consent flows from users opting into a network. Anyone is free to opt out of the Bitcoin network and consent to a new hard fork. But that doesn't imply at all that all users of the Bitcoin network consent to a hard fork. Knowing that every user consents is not possible in any way, shape or form -- and even if it were, we could only know after the fork had occurred, after which users actually migrate and affirmatively consent to the hard fork's new rules.
see there you go again "opt out of bitcoin network".. more subtly propaganda that if its not the core way then its not bitcoin..
yet core are changing the rules without needing users consent for the new direction core want to go.
Core has no obligation to attempt to break the consensus rules. I don't know where you get the impression that they do. Anyone is free to fork Core's code and try to convince the community to join them. However, I urge everyone to oppose any fork that attempts to leverage miners against users. That raises serious ethical concerns about whether migrating users actually consent, or whether they felt forced by colluding miners (who have an apparent monopoly on hash rate and thus, confirmations for transactions).
"anyone is free to fork cores code"
hmm there you go again. subtle propaganda saying bitcoin is core and core is bitcoin, meaning anything not core, is not bitcoin.. seems you actually want core to be king and own bitcoin and make decisions without users consent, and you want anyone revolting away from your ideology to be classed as a alternative network/coin.
but here is the thing that will trip you up..
orphans are the mechanism.. and orphans happen daily. meaning bitcoin is suppose to change but only in a direction the majority agree on.
so a true consensual fork is the same as the daily orphans.. the chain
CONTINUES in the direction of the majority..
if someone makes a rule change by submitting a block with odd data using the real consensual mechanism, but doesnt have majority, it gets orphaned
every day there are decisions being made for which direction the majority should move.
so by your failed definition of the consensus mechanism.. the majority of users are moving to a different network every time there is a fork(orphan)..
a controversial fork still gets orphaned off..
but.. only when intentionally blacklisting certain nodes to prevent the orphaning mechanism from taking care of the situation is where a realistic and continual split occur.
the community on the whole dont want a intentional split by adding in code to bypass the natural orphaning mechanism, all that is being said is a consensual fork for true capacity growth
which wont happen if core prevent a healthy majority by doing all this propaganda crap to keep their sheep inline to veto a change. and blindly allow another change by not telling their sheep its not requiring their consent for that route either
think long and hard about what i have just said.. and dont reply just with waffle to defend cores control