[nope96]

Do a little searching on the people pushing the "2x" Fork - Here's one example, CEO of OP's link Coinbase.com:

>Coinbase CEO Owns More Ether Than Bitcoin - Coinjournal

>Coinbase CEO Armstrong: Ethereum Scaling Better Than Bitcoin

Another example, The head coder on the "2x" fork has announced his own coin to ICO soon,

> Jeff Garzik, ... has seen its shortcomings firsthand. So he decided to create a better digital currency.

All the people pushing the 2x fork are very heavily invested in coins competing with Bitcoin. It's odd.

[flashmob]

Both Brian & Jeff are still both heavily invested in businesses that rely on Bitcoin, they are not just speculators who simply buy and hold.

Their business plans are ruined if Bitcoin fees get too high. Note that 'extremely low fees' was the original selling point of Bitcoin which now has been ruined. So they were simply defending their businesses.

[nope96]

Jeff's business model relies more on ETH than Bitcoin:

"The current launch plan includes launching on Ethereum chain, which will require paying ETH to obtain MTN tokens"

20% pre-mine

price starts at 1.67 ETH per MTN token

Remember Tezos? That raised a quarter of a billion dollars. There is way more money in making an ICO and saying "Bitcoin is broken! You need [new coin]!"

Brian makes money when you convert USD/BTC/ETH into USD/BTC/ETH. They announced they are adding more coins soon.

The main "2x" supporter runs "Grayscale Ethereum Classic Investment Trust" and tries to sell investors on a coin that nobody has ever used for anything ever.

The people who are "all in" on Bitcoin (the developers for example) think the "2x" fork is a terrible terrible idea. The people who are heavily invested in other coins want the "2x" fork to happen.

[flashmob]

Oh, I was referring to bitpay, which probably will not last long unless it pivots into b2b or altcoins.

It's also hard to tell if Bitcoin developers are all in or not. Note that developers can have different interests than holders (eg. The want to get control of the codebase in order to get status and recognition & hopefully future consulting contracts). Note that the current bitcoin devs are mostly a new generation that got later in the game. Source & analysis about this point here http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/08/26/whos-your-crypto-bu...

[nope96]

> Note that the current bitcoin devs are mostly a new generation that got later in the game.

this is 100% false, see this post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/72lwzv/if_bitcoin_...

[flashmob]

citing reddit? I'm guessing you'd like to point out the commit history table. Nice.

You might notice that the table (conveniently) starts from 2010, after a good chunk of coins already has been mined. 2011-2012 is when a lot of the new devs came in which is the new generation, but it was getting much more difficult to mine then.

There's also so many problems with git commit history, so let's be honest here, ie. How many commits doesn't tell the whole story.

Hey, btw, my comments are just observations & not meant to criticize, sorry if you think I'm attacking you. I'm pretty positive about bitcoin and I think it's good that it can re-invent itself and find a good niche (the b2b / institutional market could be huge and certainly would see Bitcoin really growing up). The direction that the current team has chosen to lead it to has certainly paid off well. I sincerely wish the project more success in the future!

[xorcist]

There were very few people involved in Bitcoin before 2010. Probably guys like Finney and theymos. The software was more like a proof of concept back then, I believe. I think we have to count even people getting involved after it became mainstream in 2013 as early adopters in the larger scope of things.

[blhack]

-Sees the flaws in bitcoin

--Wants to fix it with a hardfork

--Wants to fix it with a new coin

I think the reason for your observation is pretty obvious

[nope96]

>--Wants to fix it with a hardfork

That does not explain why He still won't adopt Segwit (the network upgrade that recently took place) on his sites coinbase.com and Gdax, which allows for 4MB blocks and cheaper transactions for his customers, in a backwards-compatible way (a Soft fork). Instead pushes for a second fork, a "hard fork", which would require every user in the ecosystem to switch to a new software (who's author is pushing an ICO coin sale of his own!). A fork which every single bitcoin developer (except the ICO-guy who hasn't contributed in 2 years) strongly opposes.

Yes, not surprising that he blogs about Ether and owns more Ether and profits when people trade their Bitcoin into Ether on his sites. Same with the other big "2x" pusher who runs "Shapeshift" a site that turns your bitcoin into other coins and takes a cut%. These guys don't want to help bitcoin, they want to make money off the cryptocurrency space.