Some do, I do hope it is the majority. Click to expand...

It is quite funny: Ever since the split, I am warming up to the BTC maximum decentralization position. Of course, that does not mean I think BTC has anywhere near the value proposition of BCH, as I value the risks that BTC can deal with due to smaller blocksize as extremely unlikely to happen and the risks that it invites by going the route it goes as much more grave.For all that matters, I think a rational market would price BTC at something like 1% or less of BCH in the next couple years, and likely decreasing even, the more BCH would drip into every aspect of financial life, making the burden of fucking with it so extreme that a hostile takeover in the "govs around the world shut the servers off"-sense becomes truly unthinkable.But honestly, I am not only in a "no BTC growth out of spite" mood anymore (though must admit that of course that part is still there, though quickly weaking. The best revenge is to get over it...).But I am also in the "no BTC blocksize growth because I accept your (Core guy's) threat model for that coin"-camp now. BTC wants to position itself as the maximum security coin through minimum full node cost.As unlikely as I think that is the right approach, and as small as my hedge in BTC might become down the road, I obviously still want that hedge to be meaningful and correspondingly represented in the coin's trajectory.That is because I neither want to endanger BCHYes, I know this all reads like trolling given the past and the crypto-community's years long fights on this issue.But why muddy the waterBTC by letting BTC deviate from its-chosen path?I accept the split.