While this is true there should be a line drawn. A good example for this is how Roger Ver is trying to rally the big blockers and all the "sheeple" as you said to go with them and fight for their cause. Does Roger Ver really know the technical ins and outs of Bitcoin? Between him and Peter Todd who would you listen to?
i dont defend people i defend the direction bitcoin is heading and hoping it stays inline with bitcoins ethos. i dont care if peoples pseudonymous nicknames get hurt. as thats just some side drama they play the victim card in..
funny thing is people think because i detest gmaxwell and sipa, that somehow i must think gavin, hearn and ver are kings. wrong
what if i told you gavin (via Bloq) and hearn (via R3) are in the same pockets as blockstream devs, once you peal all the layers away.
and that drama is just a finger pointing exercise to distract the sheep.
even funnier part is that its only core that are trying to split the community, and trying reserve psychology to point cores own plans to sound like its what other teams are doing. fooling the sheep to follow the wolf by pointing at a blacksheep and saying "look sheep stay away from that black sheep, its really a wolf"
What you are describing is what
I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset).
Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--even gmaxwell admits ver, gavin and others were against splitting the network.. but gmaxwell loved the idea of splitting it
