When Lopp says "bitcoin shouldn't be ossified" that's a threat of a fork.
When Peter Todd proposes tail emissions, that's a threat of a fork.
Its not the knots people threatening to fork off, it's the core people.
Discussion
Yes. But forks aren't inherently bad.
Bitcoin needs at least 1 hard fork to resolve the timestamp mining bug.
It's also going to need a fork if we need to react to quantum.
And if the Knots people keep up filtering, they are going to excacerbate risks funds loss related to lightning, centralizing mining, and regulatory demands on what's an allowed transaction, because after all, nodes can filter unapproved ones.
Ideology and principles are important, but Luke DashJr is not the hero. Blindly following this mindset without understanding technical ramifications and game theory is a path to bifurcation and heartache.
Then fork it, like BCH, and let the market decide once again.
