Because the Monero community has demonstrated using objective mathematical models how this split negatively impacts privacy on both chains and MoneroV users are actually more negatively impacted. MoneroV in response has claimed 'FUD' rather than offer an objective rebuttal or some solution to the problem, most likely because they can't refute the math and logic. I meanwhile have a simple solution, don't do a chain split and instead the MoneroV community should create their own blockchain from genesis. This would give MoneroV what it seems to want; it a new blockchain means no old blockchain bloat and MoneroV users remain private, but for some reason MoneroV devs have yet to explain a solution, they remain fixed on doing a chain split to their own MoneroV users' detriment.


So what does this make stuff out there like BitConnect and Monero Gold to you? Surely BitConnect is the most legit crypto out there because so many 'cry' about it? 


Citation needed.


This is easily demonstratively false by looking at Monero's GitHub contributor history and the bi-weekly public dev meetings.


You do realize that by virtue of forking from Monero, MoneroV is CryptoNote based, right? It's even listed in the table in the MoneroV roadmap paper. Heck, even the MoneroV 'white paper' is just a link to the official 'CryptoNote' white paper


Again, citation needed demonstrating how much of the hashrate is made of those. Worth noting that according to MoneroV's own roadmap that the MoneroV PoW change will not happen until Q1 '19 which means it will be using the same PoW as Monero which is used by an unknown amount of botnets and browsers to mine. So MoneroV will be just as 'susceptible' as Monero to these bad miners (worth noting the browser mining isn't necessarily bad if the user agrees to it like in the case of Salon). Furthermore MoneroV fails to explain how this PoW change a year from now will somehow make it less ideal to mine for nefarious miners than it will be at chain split.


Mmm, not really. Monero community is against them because a chain split can undermine the privacy of both chains. So far all the official MoneroV Twitter account has done is cry 'FUD' rather than bring objective facts to the table.

Let's be intellectually honest here. Two groups of people, Group A and Group B have a debate. Group A says Group B's plan is bad and gives objective facts. Group B's counterargument is 'lol FUD' and fails to counter the objective facts of Group A. Who won the debate, the one with the undeniable facts or the one that just said 'FUD'?

And going back to 'concerned trolling' if all the MoneroV community can say is 'FUD' or 'concern trolling' they're committing even more logical fallacies AKA argumentum ad hominem and further demonstrating the Monero community's points...

"not everyone with a concern is a concern troll - and not every concern is unreasonable. In environments of genuine groupthink, applying the concern troll label may serve as a means of enforcing conformity and punishing (or silencing) dissent. And even without actual groupthink in play, many Internet posters find dismissing an argument much quicker and easier than evaluating it. In addition, the term "concern troll" focuses not on what the person is actually saying, but on some alleged agenda.

Thus, if misused, it is the perfect refuge for someone who has no counter to the actual argument: simply ignore the points made, allege some other position, and then accuse the other person of lying if they deny that that is what they're really saying. It's a combination of straw man and argumentum ad hominem: make up something to attack, and ignore their actual points on the basis that since the points were made by someone acting in bad faith, they need not be addressed." Taken from https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll


Edits: sp