Thought about it a bit more, their claim that

"The majority of the network was on ledger chain A. At some point, the network decided to switch to ledger chain B."

means that the system split, and for a few hours each part operated independently, happily reporting that everything is Ok and building a separate transaction history.

This is weird. I can't imagine under what conditions that would be possible in Simcoin - it is designed in such a way that it wouldn't build 2 separate histories. If some catastrophic failure splits the network it will just stop working almost instantly, because I believe that not being able to send money is not as bad as losing it.

In that regard, Simcoin sacrifices some resilience for speed and reliability. Ripple's solution is almost centralized, it's strange they didn't take the same route...