I wish I could be optimist but I'm not. I see the coming fork (if it comes) as a huge image problem. Investors will not move till this issue is settled. BTC's quite low, and nobody shall expect it move up before that Damocles sword is being put away for good. BTC's price will remain low, and number transactions will not change much. BTC deserves better!
I wish I could do something to bring a compromise.
This is true.
I work in high finance and whereas previously people approached me in confidence to ask how they can purchase bitcoins, now people approach me in confidence to ask me if this is the end of bitcoin.
Indeed Bitcoin deserves better.
This echo's Hearn's experience that investors want a 'benevolent dictator' management structure so that shit can get done. Another reason to fork the thing already and give this segment what they want. Then we can all just move forward.
It is thus ironic that Hearn has caused investors to reconsider Bitcoin.
Not that I'm a fan of what the Core devs are doing either; they need to get their shit together too, but at least they're not trying to push blacklists and backdoor IP bans, which would jeopardize fungibility and decentralization, two pillars upon which bitcoin derives it's value in the real world.
Yet what else do investors, especially affluent investors, desire, besides scalability? Consistency and stability in the protocol, thereby making meaningful risk analysis possible.
A hard fork is anything but stable. It has been accomplished in the past without issue, however the previous hard forks were not caused by a hostile takeover of the protocol.
Among all Bitcoin luminaries, I can think of few that would be worse than Hearn in the role of 'benevolent dictator.'
Karpeles would be worse, I suppose.
Gavin was actually doing a decent enough job until Hearn whispered sweet nothings in his ear.
If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.