I will criticize a little; I hope it'll be seen as a constructive criticism.
The term (edit: the term "reverse hard fork") is a bit strange since one may somehow expect that Bitcoin will get new features
Also some things I've noticed:
* This is not really a benefit for Bitcoin, instead Goldcoin may receive some of Bitcoin's user base. I see it as a clever marketing trick, but beware, many will simply cash out their new GLC and that's all.
* Although you advertise the 1:1 (1 GLC for each BTC), the truth is that the users will get a more diluted value because Goldcoin max supply is some 20x bigger than Bitcoin's.
* The "GLC is the ideal crypto with all the features to become what Bitcoin was meant to be originally" is incorrect and unfair. And may cause Bitcoin community's aversion against this coin (see BCHSV).
* Although you don't like the fragmentation of Bitcoin community, you seem to aim to fragment it more by attracting it to your coin.
* Increased block size was said in a good number of times that it can give more chances to a certain attack vector against the coin (I am not good enough for deeper details), still you advertise it as a great feature.
* 2 minutes block time sounds great, still, it may not be helpful for every day payments. Just imagine the queue at supermarket if everybody has to wait an average 1 minute extra for the payment. So in reality it doesn't solve the biggest problem (on-chain payments at the grocery store). I don't know what 0-conf transactions are, but they sound dangerous. On the other hand LN could/should handle this faster for Bitcoin.
