Yes, the importance of running full, non-mining, validating nodes which some Bitcoin Cash people say "do not matter".
the importance of realising legacy nodes are not full validation nodes. and so you can argue all you like about backward compatibility. but code is code rules are rules and the current dataset of the blockchain is NOT in a format that is compatible with legacy nodes. and so needs bridging nodes to filter/translate th data into pidgeon english to an acceptabl level that legacy nodes ignore the issues. but then th data legacy nodes then hold cant be relayed out as part of the whole network.
also you do realise that both ver and craig wright are not devs.. so while i shout out DEV problems. you continue to want to just scream social drama about faces that dont control the code..
take a step back from the social drama of the kardashians.
lastly. if a 51% attack was going to cause change. then how come segwit didnt defacto change at 51%
(because it needs nodes to accept a pool offering a different format)
p.s stop with the foolish drama of if someone points out an issue against core then you must treat them as cashers..
no
pointing out an issue with core is trying to get the community to realise something that needs fixing to make btc better.
if that involves diluting core out and have it as separate nodes of separate teams all working on one network and all having to publicly cone to a unitd consensus by actually listening to the communities diverse desires and find some considerations and compromises until a united consensus can be established.
rather than continuing with this one team is king and anyone saying a bad word against them is evil attacker minset.. is not helping bitcoin. its turning bitcoin into a centralised monarchy
lastly people have been screaming about bitcoin nearing 51% ever since 2014