Naivete is sometimes beautiful; sometimes dangerous.
No one questions the positivity of a bigger network in general. However, what is discussed here and what you succeed to miss by 100 percent, is the reason for the rapidly growing network and its possible consequences for BURST. Two days ago the network size was tiny, which also means it would be much easier to gain access to more than 51 percent of the network. That could harm BURST. The fact that this is coordinated, could mean nothing - just someone working hard plotting and securing the network. But it could be something completely else. I and Rich just want to know what's going on; knowledge is never bad. Hopefully, H. can contribute with some answers.
Sorry for breaking the promise of not writing.
i humbly think that naivety is to assume that others are naive. I also think that all human qualities are beautiful except greed, deception amongst others, some of which are quite rife in crypto communities.
there was a time when the network size was three times its current size, and four times its size before the recent increase and the chain was a lot younger then. What happened to burst then? nothing
we had a guy who got close to 50% of the network, what happened then? nothing
these events are supposed to reassure us and comfort the current miners/holders/traders and possibly the new comers too.
i also admire and share your love for knowledge and I am sorry I couldn't contribute on a technical level but what I disagree with is starting a storm over an issue that had already occurred at some point(s) in the past. You have the right to seek knowledge but you can't dictate when it should be available to you, give them sometime to respond at least
you can write as many posts as you like as long as they are not constantly telling the same story, and I will also stop posting as I don't want to be accused of spamming the thread as well