>This is why we have to kill the weak chains. No mercy.
ABC supporters scoff at this like it's amoral and whether it's wise. but i can tell you for a fact that in 2011, when BCX & Artforz were most active in killing off altcoins, it made everyone else sit up on the edge of their seats and pay close attention (learn about the merits or demerits of said altcoin) to whether and which altcoins they might throw their fiat at. they were dangerous times the intention meant to help BTC bootstrap. which every BTC hodler benefited from whether they want to admit it or not.
Innovation and competition are important. In school, and in brainstorming sessions we might say that "there are no bad ideas" because we want to foster young brains, or do a breadth-first search for good ideas (before they're *eventually* culled). In the adult world, however, we can't protect everyone's feelings nor bad ideas. We can guess, but we can't even truly know if they're bad ideas until they're weighed by the market. No one has all the information to pronounce such things. See Hayek.
But we can vote with our forum words and our actions. These votes create new data - like focus groups. People tend to weigh actions more heavily than words, though - like miners taking a stance.
If someone thinks InflationCoins, or FreeShitCoins, or any coins, are a great idea, should we refrain from proving them wrong? Mining is a more active form of debate. If a coin can't attract enough strong miners to "defend" them from "evil" "attacking" debaters or miners, then maybe they're doing something wrong. Bitcoin isn't succeeding because people were polite to early adopters. Bitcoin is succeeding because it's a good idea.
Artforz could have just as easily gone the other way. He could have attacked Bitcoin, and promoted some altcoin. Why didn't he? Because Bitcoin was a better idea. He did more than stake his reputation on it. He made a bigger, louder statement.
Life is short. If an attack on an altcoin or split coin produces actionable data, it can help focus and inform future investors on the viability of different paths.
Anyone against miners "attacking" coins might look at a bigger picture. An attack on a coin is an
opportunity for that coin to prove how anti-fragile it is. Did it survive? Wonderful. Then maybe they should thank the "attacker" for expending his resources only to qualify the coin. Did it fail? So sad. Maybe those supporting the coin didn't really have their heart in it. Maybe the attacker cut to the chase, and saved the nest eggs of millions of potential investors. Maybe the attacker was a visionary to be thanked - helping to guide them out of the forest.
Anyone and everyone can produce a fork, but there's no value in six billion forks. Maybe the long term future will have one. Maybe ten. We'll see.
