Quote from: DGulari on November 20, 2016, 08:02:27 PM

Quote from: AvY Enterprises on November 20, 2016, 06:42:55 PM

If we run two concurrent forks then anyone on the failing fork will be left holding a wallet full of worthless coins and any transactions that occurred on that chain may as well have never taken place.

So what, you also hold the identical coins on the valuable chain. Awesome!!!

Quote from: AvY Enterprises on November 20, 2016, 06:42:55 PM

Investors hate uncertainty and just the proposition that the chains may be split could destroy the value of either.

Who fucking cares about 'investors'. We are trying to build something awesome here. We are not trying to please speculators from China. Fuck them. Let get to work and build great things with no regard for stupid fucking speculation.

Quote from: AvY Enterprises on November 20, 2016, 06:42:55 PM

Better to use testnets or another shitcoin or something and leave the main network alone until we know what's best.

LOL - 'testnets' The whole fucking thing is a test net. Bitcoin is a test. Let's do this for real. On the 'real' net.

I don't know if intentionally allowing the chain to fork is a good idea considering the amount of capital that's been confidently invested into the platform....if we can avoid causing a situation that may result in a loss of confidence, then that's what we should do. There have been "evolutionary" studies that one can analyze among the alternative chains....However, I agree that the debate shouldn't be so centralized; there should be a more readily available, decentralized, method of attaining consensus then what we have now....It seems that individual nodes in the network have been disenfranchised during bitcoin's evolution toward the larger mining farms and network pools....