[refulgentis]

I was going to write a more indirect response by way of analogy, but it got too unwieldy. TL;DR: I was predisposed to taking the position you are advocating for, but this argument is incredibly weak while demonstrating the problem, to the point it made me wonder about my own priors. Shape-shifts from "this was totally fine and normal" to "but totally couldn't do it today" to "and guess what the ppl who didn't want to rollback went to 0" to "boring story" to "crypto tribalism", whatever that has to do with anything in this context.

[idiotsecant]

That's what it means to have two chains. One chain undid the transaction. One did not. Do I really need to explain this? Both things happened because there are 2 chains. Only one of them is worth something but they both exist.

[refulgentis]

I think you got too spun up by the evil They you usually hear talking about this: whatever you're saying here sounds obvious.

The reason why people got confused with your comment is because ex. you purport it was fine, it can never happen again, and everyone who didn't agree went to 0.

Lot of tensions between those things.

We also understand how one person could have those views and even steelman it into something intellectually consistent. But then the post seems really off because it's sort of a rushed, poor, justification for why you believe something, coupled to bemoaning some sort of unrelated group none of us are privy to.

[cataphract]

Yeah, it's strange, the first paragraph seems to just say he didn't roll it back alone, it was a consensus thing, and then the second says actually it wasn't even rolled back because other people kept using the old chain (and somehow this "proves" what was said in the 1st place).