It's not clear to me, is what just happened even possible on main net?
They should be thanking whoever accelerated the '6000 blocks in one day' for showing them their fundamental brokenness bugs (how fucked they are) ... instead we get BS talking points about ASICs on testnet, wah-wah, who knew?
This.
And gmaxwell hit it out of the park:
Re "attacks" -- btc1 nodes haven't mined a block for a day. That isn't an attack, that's just a failure.
Crying attack isn't helpful-- it's often not true and at the end of the day the software must survive in an adversarial environment where attacks exist. (Though AFAICT this issue can result in pure btc1 attacker free environments stalling, and BU containing environments forking-- no attackers required).
The issue isn't a new one, this was raised as a concern and use of the 'hardfork bit' (most significant bit which must not be set on existing nodes) rather than a large block requirement was recommended.
0.840 MB/block.
Which is less than 1 and segwit isn't even enabled yet. Moreover, btc1 by default will not make a block >1MB even if there are transactions in the mempool for it. You guys are just making your code all the more frighting by vigorously denying the issues.
Perhaps instead of making excuses you should resolve the fork? Maybe then write some tests?
And then he gets called a troll.