The price is besides the point here. Thing thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?
It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.
It's why little Johnny
is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the
investors kids), find separate houses.
Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?
I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.
controversial forks (intentional splits) are not good.
that is why THE COMMUNITY wants a CONSENSUAL FORK meaning the majority continue on a single path, but have the upgraded features, higher capacity buffer, where the orphaning mechanism built into bitcoin take care of the minority.
again not an intentional split (EG ethereum '--oppose-dao-fork')
but a true consensual upgrade of features and buffer, based on majority consent
the problem is that core fanboys dont want a true consensual fork.. they have done all they can to give core power and control. to veto out any plan that involves a consensual fork..
segwit does not require consent(no nodes need to upgrade to consent to the change) and some people are mixing up the metaphors to think that the only options are controversial split or no consent.. by calling the no consent option, consensus..(facepalm)
i just wish the core fanboys dont REKT a core team release of 2mb
so then EVERYONE has the freedom of choosing, and that choice does not have to be a social choice of fanboys of certain groups.. but instead based on features they want the chain to continue on in one direction using.
because those in he core fanclub can remain with core because there is a core version of 2mb buffer
again by having a core version. it stops the social war and brings the debate back to basics of features.
wake up people. if your a core lover. by shouting hate about core releasing a true consensual fork version because you prefer the controlled no-consent path. you are truly revealing that you dont want decentralization. and it cant be hidden by "no i love core", because the code would be a core release.
but lets watch the replies from some who will shout hate speach of decentralization and show obvious bias to want core of no-consent changes. dominance and centralized control.
lets watch who REKTs people like luke JR who will release a core code implementation of 2mb buffer.
in short if you want decentralization and love core. let luke (as part of core) release the implementation.
in short if you want centralization and love cores no-consent corporate policy. reply with your hatred of decentralization