Bitcoin is on the verge of splitting in two

Bitcoin is on the verge of splitting in two | The Verge - http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/9/10946072/bitcoin-core-classic-software-block-size-debate

It has been simmering for some time, though it remained largely out of view to the general public until last month, when a prominent Bitcoin developer announced that the cryptocurrency and the technology underlying were, in his opinion, a failed experiment.
The developer, a former Google engineer named Mike Hearn, believed that bitter infighting and intransigence among the core development team had paralyzed the system, which was facing growing pains that, unaddressed, would cripple the currency so badly it was unlikely to recover.
In the three weeks since, a fascinating debate has played out across the globe, as the Bitcoin community struggled to find a way forward.
It's an intriguing test case for open-source software, highlighting how decentralized systems must grapple with internal conflict.
The network wasn't scaling to meet increasing demand
The basic system works as follows: Bitcoin miners use processing power to complete complex math problems, the cryptographic proof of work that validates bitcoin transactions on an open ledger, known as the blockchain.
Merchants can't rely on digital transactions that can take minutes or hours to validate.
Making Bitcoin more professional threatens to centralize power
The increase would also affect users running full nodes, people who aren't rewarded monetarily, like miners, but who play a crucial role in the peer-to-peer network of Bitcoin by helping to ensure the same digital tokens aren't spent twice.
The two sides -- those in favor of increasing block size (Classic), and those opposed (Core) -- have become increasingly hostile with one another over the last few months.
In theory, the approach is highly democratic and meritocratic.
Bitcoin is not dead,we are going through a similar process that early IETF & ICANN went through pic.twitter.com/YHgkQgmBJw
-- Never.
One side of the argument does have a serious logical flaw
I can, however, spot a fundamental logical inconsistency on the side arguing against a change in block size.
As written, the new code offered up by Classic will only begin creating bigger blocks -- moving up from 1MB to 2MB -- 28 days after 75 percent of hashpower has shown support by producing blocks with a special bit set in the block version number."
It's unclear what will happen if Bitcoin Classic executes a successful hard fork
One thing we know for sure is that a protracted battle would likely damage trust in bitcoin the currency, because if two competing blockchains live side by side, it becomes much easier for criminals to spend the same money twice.
The thing about Bitcoin is that anyone, with fairly minimal computing resources, can follow along in real time, evaluate the debate, download the software, set up their node, and add their vote.