(comments are based on the reddit post of OP)
blockstream paid devs gmaxwell and Wuille and luke JR are
making a persistant growth altcoin based on bip103 (the intentional split) OR a one time 2mbbip103:The new chain created by those changed nodes will be rejected by old nodes, so this would effectively be a request to the ecosystem to migrate to a new and incompatible network. Doing this while controversy exists is dangerous to the network and the ecosystem.
bip103 is not a consensus upgrade of bitcoin mainnet where orphans take care of the minority.
bip103 is an intentional split by having a ban IP/useragent so that the bip103 implementations do not interact with the mainnet implementations.
DO NOT BE FOOLED
if blockstream paid devs are implementing 103, blockstream are still:
dividing the community!!
avoiding consensus, not releasing code that will work with the bitcoin mainnet,
SILLY CORPORATE A-holes
by suggesting its an incompatible network leads to the belief they want to keep the old rule alive too.. rather than just having one chain
bip 105:is dynamic blocksize and uses consensus and the orphaning mechanism without devs needing to be the kings/deciding factor, where there will be ONE chain. but requires miners to push the difficulty up and it only activates if the majority vote for it by working on a highr diffculty. while those opposing it can happily undercut the votes by solving blocks at the lower difficulty.. (facepalm)
4th option:as for the 4th option a one time 2mb adjustment. again that is just a one time spoonfed amount keeping the devs in control, requiring the community to get on their knees and plead for devs to make another adjustment later.
summary:if only they learn to use consensus and let orphans take care of the minority(its a bitcoin feature built in) rather than intentional splits(not built in)
i do love how they try to shout that if allowed(majority nodes compatible) its deemed an incompatible new network these new nodes are pushed aside to.... strangely though, if the majority are there to even activate it.. then logic dictates its compatible and is the bitcoin network continuing on but with more buffer space to expand.
lets hope they do the right thing and not offer up an intentional (ip/useragent ban) split, like what ethereum was. and instead intend to use consensus and orphans the way it should be done to keep to one chain. and not have mechanisms that allow pools to be economically incentivised to veto it by not wanting to push the difficulty up just to incorporate more buffer