The following rests on these two assumptions (which look like facts, to me):
- Hardforks are contract violations. Previously agreed upon rules are changed by a majority. An opposing minority can either concede or be left behind.
- Softforks add new, optional rules without breaking old ones. (They can be "evil" and have effectively the same implications as hardforks, but a soft fork like SW does not.)
It seems /r/btc likes to claim that a hardfork is entirely optional, because you can keep your client/network while the majority forks off. It's a free choice, they say, while trying to take the whole ecosystem with them, leaving the minority with effectively nothing. Not even with a functioning network for months until the next retarget (or forcing emergency patches).
While technically true, this sounds very dishonest to me. While it may meet the definition of a free choice, it's certainly nowhere near a fair one. At least some of /r/btc admits this. As far as I can tell it looks like /r/btc is OK with violating previously agreed upon terms as a majority and giving the minority an unfair choice of accepting the new terms or lose the value of their holdings.
r/btc – a minority complaining about being treated unfairly thinks it's OK to treat minorities unfairly.
This fits well with the trumpesque style the subreddit has resorted to. It seems that everything they don't agree with is fake news / lies / propaganda. The system is rigged and "minorities are holding us back" (be it the core developers or an opposing minority if they ever get to be the majority). My way or the highway.
Disclaimer: this is not an argument against any future hardfork. I understand that we may have to go through with one at some point, but I urge people in favour not to sugercoat it or handwave away the implications. It's also a lot more defensible if we actually need to do it. Right now, especially with a doubling of capacity on the table, we simply don't.