I have been fighting along tiring battle against this XT/Classic movement. However at all times I kept trying to point out that:
- I support a larger blocksize limit
- I support a hardfork for larger blocks, it is just that Classic/XT did it in an inappropriate way, such as a weak activation methadology
If you support a larger block size you can't support core because they have repeatedly stated they want to mantain a 1MB block size, no matter what the market or the users wants (and needs), maybe forever. One of blockstream team confirmed this to me personally.
So, if you want Bitcoin not to die you *need* to refute core and join classic or unlimited and stop supporting core and its stupid politics.
Look through this thread, I have repeated that again and again. Please end the Classic campaign, then we can all start a sensible, collaborative, patient and calm discussion about a safe hardfork to increase the blocksize limit.
We had a lot of them already, the only non-collaborative people are the ones of Core: all the people that wanted to raise the block size, calmly and collaboratively decided to settle on a very small block increase, and from the initial exponential-growth of XT they all decided to support a simple 2MB block size. The only unreasonable and uncollaborative people was the ones of Core.
Once the campaign to activate Classic becomes insignificant, I think you will be surprised about how untied everyone is on the desire for large capacity increases.
You are again showing big symptoms of cognitive dissonance: if the people who desire a bigger block would stop advocating for it there would be no need to raise it, by definition.
Of course if you continue to sustain such a stupid and illogical idea don't be surprised people here think that you are stupid and not worth of a thougthful response.
If 20% of the miners stick to the existing rules, they have a c14% chance of overtaking a 1 block lead from Classic
With this nonsense you show all your ignorance in how Bitcoin works: even if we usually say that "the longest chain wins", that's a false statement used only to convey a complex concept to non-technical people.
In reality Bitcoin follows the chain with more accumulated Proof of Work, and whether or not that chain is longer or shorter of all the others it's irrelevant.
A chain with 80% of the hash power produces a chain with 4 times the accumulated proof of work of the other chain, and even if the latter is longer, it's totally irrelevant.
Right after the fork, the low-hashing chain proceeds adding blocks at around 1/4 of the speed, and after the difficulty adjustment the speed become similar, but the accumulated PoW added by time unit remains the same, i.e. a fraction of the dominant chain.
So, a few minutes after the fork there is really no way at all it could lead again, even for a short amount of time.