[lawn]

Oh please. The only thing a non mining full node does is make a choice which network rules you want to follow. They do not define the rules miners use, they do that themselves.

> There have been four wildly unsuccessful hostile fork attempts (XT/Classic/BU/2x)

These were all upgrade attempts that failed to gain miner support. Calling them "hostile forks" is stupid. The only thing hostile with them is the threat they pose to the developers who do not want to scale Bitcoin on-chain, for whatever reason.

> All of these attempts have been failures, because all of these attempts have not understood how bitcoin works, and the fact that nodes are the peers in bitcoin, and they police and enforce consensus.

No. Spinning up mass nodes in a sybil attack has no relevance.

They failed because they failed to gain enough hash power backing their upgrade plan. This is due to politics and economics.

[Frogolocalypse]

You have had a one year long lesson in your misunderstanding of how bitcoin works. And yet you are here trying to explain how the fork attempts didn't turn out exactly as i say.

[warboat]

It's ok, bitcoin is working even if you don't understand how it works. it's magic unicorns

[Frogolocalypse]

I'm the one who understands why all of the forks you support fail mate.