ethereum forks are only surviving due to lack of utility to pressurize users to pick one. for bitcoin that choice is simple,
speed of confirmations
tx fee war
merchant acceptance
hash power security

those 4 reasons in that order, are what will drive bitcoins choice to happen much faster.

for testing purposes of bitcoin....
just grab the source code, compile it and only select connections from IP addresses in your private group.  this will start off a new chain from block 0 if the other nodes in your private network do not have the 7 years of blockdata.
if you want to start with the 7 years of bitcoins blockchain data be aware. you are automatically hit by the difficulty that comes with it. so trying to create new blocks ontop of the 7 years data privately will take alot of hashing power/time.

if you however start to change the code and mess with things, or create new blocks its no longer "bitcoin code" and would be rejected if you tried to open your private network to the public. in actual fact your new blocks would get rejected and your nodes would simply grab the real bitcoin blocks.. well if your concensus rules have not changed too much to invalidate real bitcoin data.

for testing purposes of new features
just grab the source code tweak it to add new features, compile it and only select connections from IP addresses in your private group. this will start off a new chain from block 0 with 0 difficulty.

sorry but thats not quite right..
on a fork. the coins are meaningless..
it doesnt matter if coins never move or have moved to different addresses thousands of times.. it changes nothing.

but if there is 90% of hash power on one fork.. then those blocks are created at similar speeds as normal, yet the 10% hash is only making one block every couple hours for 2 weeks
now with one block every 2 hours.. that will ofcourse cause a fee war due to thousands of tx's every 10 minutes being added to the mempool but only one block being made every couple hours. making that minority chain a fee and time costly headache for confirmations, that wont end for months (if the chain even lasted that long(i dont think it will))

if you think that it will speed up and be reasonably fast quite quickly. you would be wrong. following the 2 weeks of 1 block every couples hours it would  then be 1 block every hour and xx minutes for 2 weeks, and slowly get shorter each fortnight. after about 6 months the difficulty will be low enough to be fast block creation,, but at a cost of weak security that can easily be 51% attacked.

also with these forks. with 90% of people on one chain.. the other 10% will find it very hard to find someone to "spend"/accept the minority chain coins.

its not about moving coins.. its purely about which has the dominating hashpower and node count.. and the minority chain eventually dies out

the minority chain will be slow, expensive, security risk, and lack of utility to "spend". making the decision to move over with the majority that much more simple and quicker.. unlike some shit/altcoins that were never really useful or had infrastructure anyways, which made their forks live longer because they were useless anyway so their was no easy choice to make

normally when i hear a crowd of people shouting out its time to sell bitcoin, i just see it as an opportunity to buy slightly cheaper if they do sell.

i have seen it happen a few times in the past. especially with goldhoarders. they try to get people to sell their bitcoins for gold.. but the secret is the gold hoarders are trying to get rid of their gold for bitcoin.

in short when someone is trying to sell another person is trying to buy. so think of the opposite to when "others" are telling you to do and think hard about why they are telling you to do it.

cost of electricity is variable, it can be cheap inner city compared to rural,, however solar, hydro alternatives can control prices to be equal and cheaper whether rural or urban.

electricity is not that big of a deal if your clever enough. the main cost is ofcourse the initial build, setup costs.

put it this way the difference between 10cent/kwh and 20cent/kwh is $2.40 a day.. or $201.60 per 3 months..

however having to buy a rig at $1000 and pay $100 shipping/customs (totalling $1100)
is a big difference compared to $200 production cost.

the electricity saving going from a 20cent area to a 10cent area is only $200 saving.. but making your own rig and running it nearby can be $900 saving

china is not the cheapest labour in the world. nor the coolest climate nor the best internet..

people may think india, due to labour costs, but the issue with india is the climate is to warm to also run the rigs within the 100mile radius of the production warehouse to ensure the rigs are running within 2 hours of being produced to maximize efficiency..

however there are some other countries that have low labour costs with a cooler climate that would allow for best chance of production, running and operating.

here is china's minimum wage $0.80 an hour
here is china's average temperature 6.95'c

i will list countries outside of "bad naughty china" where wages are under $1 and temperatures average under 8 degrees Celsius, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_yearly_temperature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country

armenia $0.76 an hour : 7.15'c
bhutan $0.35 an hour : 7.4'c
georgia  $0.07 an hour : 5.8'c
Kyrgyzstan $0.10 : 1.55'c
mongolia $0.60 : -0.7'c
russia $0.93 : -5.1'c
Tajikistan $0.29 : 2'c

now the only issue is running fibre optic cables
knowing china is 3.6mb average speed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds
seems mongola and russia are the only ones with results, and both seem alot more promising compared to china.

im guessing people will think mongolia is still "asian" so it looks like russia is the place to be.

first of all.. bitcoin is nothing like ether and ether is nothing like bitcoin.

so lets put things into prospective.
for Ether.. eventually one chain will die out. currently they lack infrastructure and uses to make the choice less than obvious.

however for bitcoin..
if the miners have a majority hash power.. exchanges would follow.. and.. symbiotically
if the main exchanges choose one bitcoin chain. then all the miners will follow that chain as its their way of "cashing out" their rewards.

secondly the merchants would follow the user nodes. after all if people are rejecting transactions where deposits and withdrawals are being done, its not beneficial to merchants to be on a chain causing issues

so bitcoins decision will happen far sooner.

the starting point is consensus. if there was a 50-50 consensus.. well miners wont even bother making a fork.. not really even at 75% but that 75% would be a kick up the ass to atleast say what general direction things will take and what the majority is possibly going with..

once a fork happens at over 90% its only then that the 10% laggers realise they are left with a useless chain that doesnt solve blocks promptly, causing major confirmation delays. also the amount of unconfirmed txs pile up in mempool causing a massive tx fee war to be first in line of the massive back log. causing that useless laggy weak chain to be expensive. and lastly that useless laggy weak expensive chain to be not accepted by merchants so people realise even paying a large fee and waiting hours for 1 confirm.. the merchants wont see it because the merchants are on the majority chain instead..
thus the minority chain dies quite quick..

again ether does not have the hashpower, userbase, usability or infrastructure to push the decision very rapidly.. but with bitcoin you would see a minority chain die quite quickly

the arguement is about programming .. and you have lost every point you have tried to raise in regards to programming. so u have tried to play the political factions card. which.. when lukeJR releases a implementation, settles the political argument too..

so im glad ur atleast willing to see the light to finally accept programming instead of trying to continue pushing the politics to push centralized control.

bitcoin should have never been about politics (dev control) anyone and everyone should have equal power, equal chance and equal freedom to make their wn implementation. so stop the political game when bitcoin core devs finally get back on the same playing field by having a implementation that other dev groups already have..

then its a free and open choice

by devs not releasing code to allow open choice for the entire population to choose features, and twist it into a dictatorship of stay with BS(core) and we will push you over to sidechains because bitcoin is too expensive to use.. or move away from BS)core) and be afraid of (imaginary) doomsdays.. will i agree never get 100% consensus..

however. releasing the code which luke JR (part of BS and core) should be doing soon will atleast stop debates about dictating "factions" and be purely about code/features. allowing for more true open and free choice of consensus..

so "realbitcoin".. are you going to throw lukeJR under the REKT bus when he solves the controversy? or accept it and resign to the fact that the "factions controversy is finally over

if family are ignoring your "ideas" it may be simply that they dont understand or dont want to get involved

many relatives of mine dont even want to install solar panels, so if i magically got rich from maybe buying shares in a company related to solar, ofcourse im not going to show disrespect to family.(crap analogy i know)

if they need financial help then let your personal morals guide who deserves it,

however if the family have be vengeful and shown hate towards you, then be happy you only have to say hi to them 2 times a year, and guide them to another relative that may help them that they atleast had some respect for

for a hard fork to succeed the USERS need to be running an implementation that accepts the hard fork, otherwise it gets instantly rejected. thus miners will not hard fork unless they are sure USERS will accept the hard fork (research: consensus).. if users are not accepting them then miners are spending $$$$ big money mining blocks that are rejected where rewards are unspendable.

so ofcourse miners wont hard fork with a large orphan/reject risk.

i didnt miss the point i just didnt (for once) want to get into the debate about how developers vetoing expansion idea's have more control thus making the users limited in their choices/abilities.. and instead just wanted to address the 'miner' issue the op was crying about

so 20 signers.....

lol now your centralizing your idea.. way to go, you just backtracked into a worse concept then bitcoin.

but even with 20 signers.. thats 20 signatures per transaction. again think about bloat..
if you are now revising your idea to say that the transactions that hit the 6hour "main chain" wont include the 20 signatures to reduce bloat on the main chain. then there can be some manipulation occurring in the middle due to the lack of need of 20 signatures in the main chain. which renders the 20 signatures effectively useless in the end.

also 6 hour blocks on main chain.
think about it.. bitcoin averages 2500tx every 10 minutes. thats 90000 tx every 6 hours.. which for best security purposes should include all the signature data too.. now those blocks will be more then just a few MB..

i think peer-confirmation (liquids concept) has its place if there are only 20 businesses that want to privately trade their 'reserves' collectively, but as a concept for controlling millions of peoples funds instead of the 20 businesses 'reserves', is risky and very much centralized

now lets get to some other points.
you mention bitcoin miners "stealing coins" ... im guessing you forgot the whole security of private keys that make that practically impossible.
you mention bitcoin miners ignoring transactions.. im guessing you forgot that the only transactions that get dropped from mempool are ones that dont meet the "fee market price" and linger in mempool too long.. which can be solved by allowing more buffer space per block to add more transactions per block to reduce the fee war, so that more transactions get added without a fee war or 12-48 hour delay/drop off.

im going to presume you will suggest that its the miners causing the fee war for profit. yet its not. its the blocklimit. i know i know you will twist the argument some more to blame miners in some other way, but the short and curlies of it is that transactions are not delayed or dropped and people dont have coins stolen due to miners..

im guessing you might be trying to think of a way to highlight "empty blocks" scenario as a ploy to push your rhetoric. well if you look at the empty blocks you will see the timing of their solutions is under 2 minutes. this is because they have been "lucky" to solve a block before they have even had a chance to completely verify the previous block to know which transactions remain unconfirmed to then add to the new block.. this is not deception this is just starting a new block as soon as a competing solution is broadcasting rather than working on old data while they verify the competing solution is valid or not

the only issue about miners is the racist mindset that somehow 1.2billion people in one country must be somehow colluding together. yet i didnt hear you cry the same racist cries when america dominated the mining arena.. a couple years ago.

the way to solve the racist saga is in 2 clear and defined ways
1. stop being racist.
2. get american/european companies to make cheap mining rigs to run, instead of buying them from the chinese at retail prices. then we wont be handing the chinese free hashing power which they buy through the profits on the retail prices.

by this i mean. when bitmain sells a rig for $1000 to the west the build cost is maybe $200.. so for every rig the west controls china is now running 4 of their own, literally paid for by the west but not control or owned by the west. so if the west want to dominate again. they need to build their own cheap rigs to compete again

lol

well i think you are proposing a second database where each transaction accumulates upto 6000 signatures (because there are 6000 nodes) making a transaction chain bloated.

looks like you took a pinch of Liquids concept and a bit of Weak blocks concept. and tried to make it sound like something that would work.

but practically it wont work and would cause more issues, rather than benefits.

people prefer bits or sats..
80,638.88 bits
8,063,888 sats

if you did not realise it. at code level everything is measured at satoshi level up(8063888 sats).. its only the front end GUI that shows things at bitcoin level down (0.08063888).. due to the fact that bitcoins fiat value increases, it makes sense to start thinking about amounts in small denominations of bits and sats up (with or without comma for display purposes), as oppose to thinking of it from the bitcoin level down involving nearly all amounts being underneath a decimal

i have done this a few times and had various success and failures.
here is some advice.

1. ensure you are living in an area where there are many bitcoiners
2. ensure the retailer you pick is sells a product/service/food/beverage, that bitcoiners would use regularly
3. its normally best if your introducing it. that at first you become the retailers exchanger by setting up a prepaid bartab. enough to cover a few weeks of transactions, and handing the retailer more fiat as the total gets to the limit each week/fortnight

i mention this because if the retailer only gets one customer a month. its not worth the hassle for the retailer, even if you were to explain bitpay/coinbase as oppose to direct prepaid bartab method.

the best success is using a bar/restaurant where you and a group would have regular bitcoin meetups at.(emphasis: actual real bitcoin customers regularly) where in the beginning it is more of a gimmick to train staff to ask for 0.XX BTC (i say gimmick because they know they already have $£ in the bartab).. but thats just a zero loss confidence giver to the retailer to atleast try it and learn it at first.

but as soon as they know how to show a QR code and mention how much BTC the beer/meal will be, you can do things more official like getting them to set up their own bitpay/coinbase account at 0% fee(for small local retailers doing under 30 tx a month.) as oppose to visa/mastercard which is upto 2.5%

ok people

"money" is the term for that central bank stuff with a £$ sign..

"currency" can be anything. even your wife uses sex as her currency to get something nice for valentines day. prisoners use cigarettes as currency.. currency can be anything and everything including money, assets and items of value. currency is an umbrella term

money is not an umbrella term. money is just money.

bitcoin is not money, but is a currency.

bitcoin is infact an asset currency, where asset means something someone owns that has value.. such as a product or goods. so bitcoin is in laymens terms a "digital goods" or a digital asset.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562854/Bitcoin-Its-not-just-online-Britains-physical-shop-virtual-currency-bought-opens-London.html

already happened

it didnt last long.
making profits from your home via localbitcoins.com is only nets you 1-5%..

no one would want to go to a place and pay a premium above 5%. yet the azteco shop required building rent, electricity, internet connections, business tax, etc etc. so all of this will eat into your profits.

also unlike other shops that sell over 100 products, meaning 100 DIFFERENT chances to get 100x more different customers wanting different things. azteco only sold one product (bitcoin). which means demand and popularity is low.

after all out of 7 billion people there are only a couple million people that use/want bitcoin.. so its not exactly as popular as toilet paper

bitcoins irreversibility makes bitcoin as a currency perfect.

human issues such as scamming should be solved by humans, not code.

in short u cant code solutions to stupid, people will still get scammed even if payments were reversible. so the solution is not about reversibility, but about sorting out the human factor.

EG escrows (automated services, middlemen or even multisig)
EG knowing your trader (dont throw funds at a stranger you know zero about, if you wouldnt hand $100 to someone u never met in the real world dont do it with bitcoin)

dont ruin the thing that makes bitcoin perfect purely for the 1% of scammers. especially when scammers would find a way around every coded attempt to remove scamming risk.

having a "foundation" is meaningless unless you can atleast explain what you intend to do with it

a foundation needs a purpose. needs to actually do something and have some positive use and need for the community.