Well, these aren't two distinctive set ...
So, I do agree, that ABC is a problem and that deadalnix and his followers are a pain the ass. But imho that should be dealt with after the 15th.
It's nice to see that we mostly agree on the assessment of the situation, and are able to politely discuss our differing interpretations.
I just don't believe that doing the wrong thing today will result in getting the right thing tomorrow; than giving ABC everythings they want without a fight, will help us to deal with them.
Right now, after weeks of controversy, I did not see a single indication of self-reflection from ABC. Instead,
@Mengerian proposes to tighten the feature freeze deadline and already asked to discuss the May fork.
Two of the proposed features are Merklix Trees and Schnorr signatures. Out of my head (and possibly wrong): Merklix trees are a new hash tree that replaces / is added to the current Merkle tree. It is Amaury's version of the path to UTXO commitments (which is the ONLY thing I'm really interested in). Schnorr increases capacity by 20 percent if fully adopted (= never), increases privacy of Multisig-signatures and eliminates Malleability (huhu, Adrian, Lightning coming to BCH
Both changes are interesting. But the timeline to discuss such complicated things is insane. If - IF - there is a consens about implementing these features (I doubt), they need to be assessed in detail, compared with alternatives, and implemented with a consultation of merchants, wallet-providers, exchanges and so on. If not sneaked into P2SH in a SegWit-style, Schnorr will need to be implemented by every wallet, if you don't want to lose fungibility (make a wallet fail when it gets a transactions). Just as an example.
So, what will happen? There will be discussions, there will be fights, again. But as people tend to repeat successfully exerciced strategy, ABC will continue what they do since the beginning. And you really think you can stop them this time? After a significant part of the hashrate has left / surrendered, after parts of the community, that are against ABC dictatorship, has lost interest, after exchanges made it clear that they define BCH as ABC's coin, independently of the hashrate? I don't think so. The odds will only get worse.
And about the larger picture ... Here is a reddit-comment of Top-ABC-shill Kain_niaK
Here's the quote:
"We have a window of opportunity to get some change in to the protocol that will get us to 100 MB blocks that the network can handle witout orphan rates playing the party pooper. That would give us the capacity for 5-10% of what Visa does.
ABC knows they are currently able to get these changes in the protocol but it's already getting harder and harder as you can tell."
ABC must be BCH dictator to make the protocol of Bitcoin Cash scale well enough ...
If Bitcoin Cash is a developer-dictatorship, and if it is changes to CTOR - Schnorr - Merklix in just 6 or 7 month, doing a large redesign to deal with an imaginery demand for transactions,
it will no longer compete with Bitcoin, the hard, immutable, decentralized P2P cash money. It will just be another (unused) Altcoin which claims to have good scalling attributes, like Dash, IOTA, EOS, Cardano and so on.
And you tell yourself you prevent a takeover by CSW, while it is VERY clear and open what's really going on.
