Quote from: Vlad2Vlad on April 18, 2017, 06:55:25 PM

Brohim, you should read Satoshi's whitepaper again. Splitting the network and ecosystem in two and having 2 bitcoins sharing or shaming the brand is not the way to go. What's to stop someone from splintering it into 4 or more? Would you like to see 8 bitcoins? Would that coddle your coexist feelers?

By design and for the best interest of Bitcoin's long-term survival, the short chain will be [naturally] killed off as outlined in Satoshi's original paper/vision.

xoxo,

Jericho911

We'd rather see 8 Bitcoins that work, each in their own way, than 1 Bitcoin which barely works because its users are divided and can't agree on anything. Or, for that matter, 1 Bitcoin which is run by dictatorship.

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 18, 2017, 07:45:01 PM

If the network splits, miners have a right to attack the minority fork due to transaction replay between the two changes. A bilateral split to allow two independent chains to exists requires preventing transaction replay between the two chains. No one can tell the existing protocol to fork off.

Transaction replays should be resolved one way or another. That's not an argument that justifies attacking.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 18, 2017, 10:16:29 PM

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on April 18, 2017, 06:14:42 PM

We believe that all these different currencies have a right to coexist peacefully and compete fairly. We oppose any attempt of supporters of one currency to inflict damage on a different currency, in a way which achieves no purpose other than denying others the right to use the currency of their choice.

Meni, I don't see you differentiating between stopping a minority chain temporarily while a network split is happening vs attacking an existing currency. I could certainly make the argument that these are two very different things. If the majority of the hashpower wants bigger blocks and wants to ensure we keep the bitcoin brand, why shouldn't we be allowed to do so? That seems like fair to me. If the minority wants to continue with 1mb blocks and chooses a different PoW algorithm and changes their name to something other than bitcoin, it can do that. And I don't see anyone calling for attack at that point.

And let's be honest about your bias: You support bitcoinCore, which is just fine with 1mb blocks, so no action will suit them just fine. Those that want bigger blocks or do not agree with core's roadmap or leadership are forced to do something else.

We're not, and we don't see the importance of this distinction. Majority of hashrate is not what determines what Bitcoin is. There are two camps, each with significant weight, that have different ideas about what "Bitcoin" is - so they should share the brand, at least until one of them prefers to rebrand. It's working fine in Ethereum.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 18, 2017, 10:16:29 PM

And let's be honest about your bias: You support bitcoinCore, which is just fine with 1mb blocks, so no action will suit them just fine. Those that want bigger blocks or do not agree with core's roadmap or leadership are forced to do something else.

That's false, Bitcoin Core is looking to softfork SegWit, which is vital to its scalability roadmap. Bitcoin Core is currently hamstrung by miners that oppose it [SegWit. I thought that was clear], and I would much rather those miners form a separate currency.

Also, the document is not just my own opinion, it was approved by all board members of the Israeli Bitcoin Association, one of whom supports Bitcoin Unlimited (and supported Bitcoin-XT and Bitcoin Classic in the past).