@Murch I deleted the meta answer because I don't want to be seen as messing in Bitcoin Design business.

If you want clarification on any content let me know.

@Mercedes Hey Mercedes, I didn't mean for you to delete your post, I was rather hoping to better understand where you were coming from with it

Given that BCH, XEC, and BSV together have about 0.6% of the total hashrate and the site has only been focused on BTC for a few years, I was a bit surprised at the argument that the site should be prepared for "another bitcoin" to potentially become the main topic of the site.—If I understood that right.

@Murch If I remember correctly, I was about (1) being welcoming to forks (even though only design-wise, as I don't comment about site scope), and (2) prepare for the potential event of schism where the "not Bitcoin" faction "wins" (even though we might consider that unlikely).

Hmm I would think that it is tough to design for future forks/schisms. I think the most neutral stance would be to just stick with the well-adopted open-source design motifs. Becoming a bitcoin user is opt-in, to both the current and future instantiations of the network. I'm not sure I see how the potential for a future instantiation that differs from the current one means that a novel design is most welcoming.

Unless I've misunderstood, with that sort of logic, it would become untenable to ever commit to a certain design style, no?

And that would sort of give me the impression that bitcoin "can be whatever you want it to be", which I think is incorrect, since it is an opt-in network with fairly well-defined rules. There are mechanisms to change those rules in various ways over time, but none of those mechanisms are contingent upon any individual user's choice.