ok with respect and courtesy. without you meandering off topic to beg for people for code or talk about remittance..
why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"
why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.
why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.
EDIT:
i only have one user account.. thank you very much..
how about try to answer the question rather then discredit people..
ANSWER THE QUESTION JUST ONCE
They (CIYAM and small blockers) already answered that.
Their position is basically that multiple implementations are
ok but hard forks are not.
However, sometimes the consensus rules DO
need to change, for example, to lift the 1MB block size
limit.
Consensus on changing a consensus rule
would be best, but not always possible,
in which case a 'contentious hard fork' becomes
the only option to invoke change.
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
Obviously, many of those that don't would rather
see change, even if it does means forking.
I know where I stand.
The adjectives ("hostile" etc) mean little to me.
The situation is what it is and in time Bitcoin
will move forward one way or another.