https://twitter.com/shadders333/status/1342532244032942092 @shadders Luke Dash Jr has discussed this in the past. Basically his belief is that once miners break up with current rules and start mining the new "invalid chain" (from the perspective of those who are still validating the old chain), all the hash power and nodes that moved to the new chain will free up space for smaller miners to turn on their mining equipment and mine the old chain. The ultimate backstop, assuming ALL industrial miners and mining equipment moved to the new chain, would be end users running nodes turning on the mining function so the old chain could survive the miner exodus. So basically what he said is that all the current miners is not vital for BTC and if they decide to go away BTC survives because domestic nodes start mining again. If they manage to get exchanges and other players to help the old chain keep the bitcoin title, they will probably retain value and attract new miners. Big blocks make this process more difficult because running a mining node would be much more complex for end users and small miners, so big-block chains sacrifice this ultimate backstop. I understand the argument that trying to keep this backstop at the cost of scalability and functionality is a very bad trade, but it seems that their priority is exactly to never lose it, no matter the cost. What are your thoughts?