Right now a lot of people seem to think that as long as the community thinks a change is good, than the majority of hashrate is still the attacker if they do not want the change.
This was also the narrative of the UASF movement.
Here is the thing, imagine bitcoin as world money.. now who is the community? Are still some developer groups deciding what changes go in? What if they decide a very controversial change, say the supply limit is a good change.. Are we still going with twitter polls, or social media campaigns? Maybe we could have a world voting system, that might be ok, I guess, but currently there is nothing like that in place.
There is no mechanism really for "the community" to vote on stuff, just some loud people on twitter.
The mechanism for bitcoin to stay the way it is and the voting process is by design the nakamoto concensus as in miners vote with their hashpower.
You might not like this, but it is the best way to vote at the moment. The miners have an investement made that they want to protect. If you want to have a say, a vote, you got to mine.. ultimately that is how bitcoin was designed, the whole idea behind it, is the incentive of the miners to protect the network.
In Segwit2x times, I never understood how people are going to ever change a thing if they wait for somehow a magical concensus to appear if it is not decided by hashpower. There is no other voting, you basicly leave the decision to a small developer group (and small I mean in world money terms). In 40 years from now, they will have changed, the new developers might have even less investment in this thing and will try to change things to get their name known and so on. The miners will also be different ones, but they have money invested.
So as a conclusion, I do not think that Bitcoin SV is an attacker if they have more than 51% of the hashpower, no matter what you think the twitter concensus is and who has the best social media campaigns. The lesser hashpower chain is the attack if they introduce changes that the miners do not want. It is a social media attack so to speak.
I mean I can see why people do not like this, go develop a new coin that has a great way to deal with this and still is secure, gl (really)
