Quote from: franky1 on September 17, 2016, 11:40:26 AM

Quote from: Shiroslullaby on September 17, 2016, 11:06:39 AM

I know the idea of a hard fork scares people. Its fucking scary.

consensual forks are not scary. orphans take over the minority, and thats the point. thats what the consensus mechanism is all about.
its the doomsday of intentional splits (like ethereum intentionally split) which is a separate thing, called controversial, which are scary.

no one is saying we should logically do a controversial split. apart from the core fanboys who veto a consensual agreement, and by this are saying the only way to increase the capacity buffer is to split.. simply with their veto power

all because they dont want increased capacity, and are telling people how scary controversial splits are because they themselves fear consensual capacity increases as it will de-incentivise the (heavily invested corporate) need to go offchain

At this point I suspect a controversial split will be the only way forward, keep in mind it only takes a very small minority of people to disagree to cause a split to happen in the first place. Which is definitely the case now, it is not unfair to think that some of these small blockist will simply never change their mind, and these two opposing ideologies can not exist on the same network since these differing visions also have very different road maps and projected outcomes for Bitcoin, which is why a split has most likely become inevitable.

I do agree that in principle consensual forks are not scary, but this has become a controversial topic for better or worse, no matter how long we wait or how good our arguments might be, this might not change, this is in part why splitting the network has indeed become the best possible solution to this impasse.