Quote from: kano on August 10, 2017, 03:06:21 PM

Yes I do realise the 'retard' did it on purpose and knew it would cause problems for bitcoiners, but in the assumption that BCH would replace BTC.

But that's even worse than doing it by mistake ...

BCH was claimed to have been created to over come the problem of the UASF.
Once that problem was removed, BCH should have disappeared.
Since it didn't disappear, it means that Bitmain and ViaBTC purposely caused problems for Bitcoin, when they could have simply avoided them with a few lines of code change.
Yes I do know it's only a few lines of code change, I've done it before for testing purposes.

So, what's better?
1) Calling him a 'retard' for making a mistake (not the case) or
2) Lynching him up for risking screwing around with everyone's Bitcoin wallet who runs BCH ...

I worded it as 1), but since it really is 2), when and where's the hanging?

I think we should never advocate violence, and I know you were not, you were just joking. Many people, especially those who mine on your pool look to you for the solid explanations of things in the BTC ecosystem. If you soften your description of a complex situation like this one, then the people who depend on your insights will be unprepared to make good choices. In November when 2x should be kicking in, all of us will look to you for technical explanations and leadership WRT where we should point our hash, and who we should bring pressure to. If this was a mistake maybe we go one direction, if it was on purpose maybe we take a different action.

I know it is a pain in the ass, but you are a leader in our community because of your pool, and because of the time you take to explain how Bitcoin works. So that puts you in a position of responsibility when the folks look to you for insights.