Franky1 is the biggest advocate of this idea in the forum. I respect that, but it is very debatable. What if Bitcoin Cash increased its block size and doubled its monetary supply? Would that "bilateral split" idea be easy to accept? I believe it won't.
actually it was the devs that advocated bilateral split... its their buzzword
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
i am against throwing opposers off the network so minorities get a faked consensus. but the devs advocate it (UASF)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% .. then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
i am against the idea of mandatory forks.
i am against single brands of software deciding whole network decisions,
i advocate consensus of community acceptance via joint communication to find healthy compromise which a majority can accept on and stay one network
i am against splitting the network just so one team can get their way.
WAKE UP and stop the fud, atleast research consensus
if you dont want to research what actually happened network-wise
atleast research your topics and stop the social finger pointing unless you can prove it
show one post where i say i love and advocated bilateral split and ill show many where i am shunning the devs for performing one
also throwing my username into the same sentance as cash is foolish too. but i can see your motivations are clear now
you really have gone full FUD.