If BCH network/protocol design is as good as they claim, they don't need to worry about anything and they can rant/promote about their coin after the attack 
Besides, lots of cryptocurrency already attacked and still survives until today.
some things aren't fixable!
for example when you have 32 MB blocks and the whole reason why your altcoin exists is to have a bigger block, you can't just fork back and turn it to a smaller size block again.
or when your coin (BTG) is successfully attacked and is easy to wipe its blockchain with a 51% attack you can't do much about it. and it has lost value. it was 0.3BTC at some point and now it is 0.003BTC.
or when your blockchain is more than 1 TB (ETH) you can't do anything about it. it is your blockchain and you can't discard it, you are already centralized.
You're totally right, no way the community would agree to any consensus which remove it's features or reduce it's TPS.
Besides, ETH already prove that storage capacity isn't the the problem, but the storage speed and i've heard majority full nodes need to use SSD which is far more expensive than HDD.
Surely they're not bitcoin purist since BitPico also attacked Bitcoin and Lightning Network in past.
Besides, lots of cryptocurrency already attacked and still survives until today.
Even if this attack is a success, I don't think BCH value will be down to the worrying level. They will simply fix it and everything will be same as before. People are not rational nowadays, altcoin like XVG, BTG, EOS, etc. still hold high value despite multiple attacks and/or bugs in their network.
some things aren't fixable!
for example when you have 32 MB blocks and the whole reason why your altcoin exists is to have a bigger block, you can't just fork back and turn it to a smaller size block again.
or when your coin (BTG) is successfully attacked and is easy to wipe its blockchain with a 51% attack you can't do much about it. and it has lost value. it was 0.3BTC at some point and now it is 0.003BTC.
or when your blockchain is more than 1 TB (ETH) you can't do anything about it. it is your blockchain and you can't discard it, you are already centralized.
You're totally right, no way the community would agree to any consensus which remove it's features or reduce it's TPS.
Besides, ETH already prove that storage capacity isn't the the problem, but the storage speed and i've heard majority full nodes need to use SSD which is far more expensive than HDD.
Not really sure if anyone attacking Bcash really can be called Bitcoin purists. Merely acknowledging Ver's baby might almost be called recognition of it as a "competitor". Methinks the purists aren't at all bothered by what's going on with alternative chains and only focusing on Bitcoin.
I mean, I can understand having a point to prove, but should we prove it with the 30 or so forks (more?!) of Bitcoin? They're the ones with points to prove, after all. Not Bitcoin.
I mean, I can understand having a point to prove, but should we prove it with the 30 or so forks (more?!) of Bitcoin? They're the ones with points to prove, after all. Not Bitcoin.
Surely they're not bitcoin purist since BitPico also attacked Bitcoin and Lightning Network in past.