Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 23, 2017, 12:10:56 PM

Hard forks allow for cleaner code fixes than soft fork kludges.

This is a common misconpcetion and lie spread by BTU fanatics. SWSF vs. SWHF is a very trivial different and SWHF does not fix any kind of "soft fork kludges" (as they don't exist in this context).

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 23, 2017, 12:10:56 PM

The ironic thing is, the UASF force currently have to use their own implementation of a bitcoin node:

https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin

The only ironic thing here is that the UASF implementation is already much more advanced than BU is. BU is based on outdated Bitcoin Core code (0.12.x).

Quote from: OmegaStarScream on April 23, 2017, 12:51:48 PM

A fork (Soft/hard) should happen no matter how long It takes, I never meet anyone who agrees that bitcoin should stay as it is right now. If bitcoin stays as it is then there will be a problem in the future and It's only going to make people stay away from it.

Of course you're going to meet those. There are some genuine people that have actual reasons for their stance, then there are those that are paid by various agencies to shill this belief (see my next remark).

Quote from: dinofelis on April 23, 2017, 01:35:20 PM

My idea is that a crypto currency's protocol should remain as it was the day that it got started - I'm even convinced that a sufficiently decentralized crypto currency CANNOT change its protocol. If it can change, it means that there is a form of leadership, and hence, is not a decentralized system. If it can change, it is not permissionless, as we have seen with ethereum, and there is a "board of central bank governors" that proposes and decides, can censor, can print extra money, can modify the rules to suit them.

In other words, your idea is complete bullshit and has nothing to do with how actual cryptocurrencies work in practice (maybe you need to read a whitepaper or two). Then again, you're being paid for this kind of nonsense so it doesn't come as a surprise.