I think it's reasonable to assume that the big FUD storm regarding bitcoin blocksize had made more bitcoiners interested in diversifying into altcoins, I've notice a trend of high profile bitcoin figures voicing support for various altcoins or jumping on the BTC FUD train.
"FUD train" is a bit dismissive and papers over the fact that for the first time, Bitcoin is meaningfully handing key use-cases to alts. Core's roadmap that clearly has no regard for keeping on-chain fees as cheap as possible for as long as possible, is opening the door for alts to satisfy the demand for secure & cheap transactions. Further, Core stonewalling the community, and stagnating development that's actually meaningful to users is scary.
Thus, the key thesis that Bitcoin can and will adapt when necessary, and/or adopt innovations from alt-coins (adaptive blocksize anyone?) when it's clearly advantageous to do so, is now empirically in question.
So you can count me as one of the people who's been staunchly Bitcoiin-maximalist for *years*, but is now questioning Bitcoin's direction in a fundamental way that I have not before. There hasn't been an event in Bitcoin, until now, which threatens to fundamentally change Bitcoin's longterm vision and key value. So it's pretty darn reasonable for people to start looking elsewhere. I personally haven't converted any cold-storage BTC to alts, but as you note, I'm seeing long-time Bitcoiners do so (or at least talk about it) for the first time. Core and supporters may want to take notice before the reality that Bitcoin is not operating in a competition-free vacuum hits them in the face. There's still time to fix this. But not much.
I am a Maximalist ('BTC's Holy Ledger is the Mother of All Blockchains and Father of All Settlement Networks'), but not a Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist ('only BTC should exist; all alts are scams Because Natural Monopoly and Reasons').
Like smoothie and many others, I've been advocating/predicting Nash equilibrium among Bitcoin and the (legtimate) alts since Litecoin was created. So spare us the strawman about delusions of Bitcoin "operating in a competition-free vacuum."
Your FUD train is a FUD train, and deserves to be dismissed. Reiterating your train of FUD doesn't change that, but confirms everything Kozi said.
Nothing fundamental in Bitcoin has changed; it still works almost perfectly. Your Chicken Little 'sky-is-falling' panic inducement has no effect on the Honey Badger.
He doesn't really give a shit about your 'this-time-is-different-FOR-SURE' litany of fretfulness and "stonewalling/stagnating/scary" rhetoric of concern trolling.
The world adapts to Honey Badger; he does not jump through the latest trendy software hoop every time some Panicky Penelopes feel like wetting their pants over losing use cases (marginal or otherwise) to altcoins.
You even put the classic false sense of urgency in at the end of your post. Nice touch. Very good ad copy, what with the creation of a need/problem, offer of a solution, and final call to action.
But sorry, no sale. Control variables like blocksize, which effect the economics and decentralization of e-cash/crypto experiments, are not going to be changed for no good reason. We'll have segwit ASAP, so let's calm down and avoid having a Hearnia.
The proper way to expand the experimental search of e-cash state space is by creating parallel experiments with adjusted parameters. It's best to have Bitcoin follow through on its commitment to limited/fixed blocks, while Monero tries a different approach with dynamic blocks.
Bolting onto Bitcoin the latest shiny new altcoin thing only concentrates risk and reduces diversity of options available to users.
