it isn't necessary right now, people feel it's forced upon them, people don't like the idea of huge chain, there have been no alternatives presented ... and a lot more reasons.
As it stands now i think the fork will end both post-fork-coins. In any case it was bad PR.
I think once a coin has become so big with such a cap you just don't fork it. You let it run and try to preserve it while pushing out more sophisticated stuff in form of new chains. No idea what justifies to put people in this stress when Mr. Andresen can just release his visa-dream-coin in altsection and see if it finds a buyer. What's the problem about that? Are bitcoin bagholders too lazy to trade some coins or what's the problem? I don't see a reason to drag the entire userbase and investors into this shit when an altcoin can be released. This whole act is not justified and is in no way constructive. Bitcoin became the joke of the internet over night with this proposal shit. It's totally irrational.
So i do understand very good all the trolling now. And maybe we should rename the forum post-fork to gavincointalk, who knows?
Okay so after releasing software and it gets spread to many users you don't upgrade it? Solid logic there.
Should Facebook cease work on its website due to the high number of users? The problem is that we haven't had something like Bitcoin. In the case of a company (e.g. Facebook), it can force changes easily, but with a decentralized community it won't work like that.
The Bitcoin community is full of different people, most of them don't really understand the protocol (they think and say that they do).
These so called 'supporters' that are against the fork, will actually be the people who caused the death of both forks (if it comes to that).
updating and hardforking are not the same thing. The rest was tl,dr
