[cjslep]

> The only point of note is that there was a coordinated effort to take this option - one which will not likely be possible in a future larger network.

Saying "this is possible in Bitcoin" despite its large size then try to downplay Ethereum's same risk when it gets bigger just seems an odd way to justify Ethereum's value to me (an outsider to all cryptocurrencies). Between the two, Ethereum has the proven history of generating the coordinated effort. Bitcoin does not. So if both are the same size, the cryptocurrency's specific community and history is a factor in its value. I would rather avoid the smart contracts that Ethereum has as it seems like a liability.

[TTPrograms]

It's not an argument for justifying its value, it's an argument for dismissing devaluation simply based on the hard fork. Network size advantages could end up being temporary, so the remainder of your argument is based on the premise that Bitcoin retains its size advantage.

The remaining question is if you think that the actions of a developer and early-adopter community around one of those technologies in its infancy should affect it's long-term valuation and capability. This seems silly to me. It would be like if Reddit wiped out everyone's karma when there were 100 users and then debating if this meant Reddit was no longer valuable - of course not. In this case it's even stronger, because having large numbers of users implicitly makes these sorts of events more difficult to pull off.