because a hard fork is not just one thing. its people like you who unconvincingly try to brush stuff under the rug and treat it all as a disaster.
controversial vs consensus
accidental vs intentional.
So after a redundant analogy, you resort to ad hominem? controversial vs consensus
accidental vs intentional.
People who have kept a close eye on your posts and who are decent with Bitcoin knows that what you're preaching is usually very wrong. The fork debate has been beaten to death, and you've provided no good reasoning for it.also unlike yourself who avoid learning, some people want to learn.
You've pretty much described yourself. How about you stop attacking other people and start listening for once? your whole message and majority of most posts in this debate(on multiple topics) do not give any:
analogies of the how code works
realistic and real knowledge of code
understanding of code
i however do give examples, stats, details,etc.. i only reply offtopic AFTER you 'poke the bear'
but it is funny that you poke the bear and then cry when the bear bites back.
as for the "People who have kept a close eye on your posts" i dont care about your small little flock of gmaxwell religious friends are talking about, yo can all circle each other pretending gmaxwell/adam back are your kings and saviours.. that has nothing to do with bitcoin code. but more so some off topic religious/political view of wanting to ruin bitcoins decentralization, within your little minds..
and i hope after 6 months of asking you, you are finally underway of learning some C++ to read a few lines of code.
EG
to understand the benefits of '2mb base 4mb weight' using the real 'consensus mechanism' without any '-oppose-fork' flags to ensure the upgrade happens within the consensus to avoid your fake doomsday cries. then everyone gets what they want.
have a nice day,