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.
You should look up the meaning of "consensual"....it relates to "consent". The "majority" as you say cannot "consent" for the minority. Consensual means every user agrees, not tyranny of the majority. Orphaning is irrelevant here---why would you even mention it? If a hard fork gains the majority of hash rate, the minority just stays on the weaker chain. They can't even see the "longer chain" because it's invalid according to their consensus rules. They just ignore it. Two separate blockchains. This is why there is no such thing as a "majority rule consensual hard fork".
And what makes you think a hard fork won't be controversial?
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
Nobody is going to stop Luke from submitting a pull request. Whether it's merged is another matter. And whether users support it is another matter.
...And now if we don't support some hard fork, we hate decentralization, right...