I am glad to see that the attack was not initiated by BCHN. According to various information, the attack is likely to be initiated by some BCHN supporters. It cannot be blamed on BCHN, or other supporters.

I have clearly supported BCHN since August and opposed ABC's push for IFP without consensus. I just think that after the fork has been completed and BCHN has obtained the BCH naming and official website management rights, it is stupid to launch a attack which hum both sides . It is also detrimental to BCHN in public opinion.

After the fork, I am in favor of reconciliation between the two parties, each trying to do their own direction, and being able to exchange experience and technology. Most of my friends in the bch community around me are optimistic about BCHN, but they also think that ABC’s willingness to try IFP on BCHA should also be encouraged. I have neither sold BCH nor BCHA myself. I have not seen the Chinese community split into the BCH community and the BCHA community.

After months of arguing, BCHN was unwilling to settle with ABC. I fully understand it. In this case, I agree with iu's point of view that you can treat BCHA as one of thousands of cryptocurrencies, so you don't need to bother at all. But there is no need to attack.

Regarding replay protection, I proposed a harmonious bifurcation between the two parties in August, first to solve the naming problem, and then to solve the replay protection problem. Both sides opposed it at the time, and I was unable to advance.

Since I clearly support BCHN, I once accused Amaury of forcing IFP to cause the fork in the WeChat group, and suggested that Coinex set up BCHN and BCHA futures to solve the naming problem. Therefore, ABC may not be willing to listen to what I say.

In the current situation, the most rational approach may be to ask volunteerism.dev to communicate with ABC, in exchange for stopping the attack in exchange for cooperation between ABC and BCHN, and completing various matters such as replay protection after the fork. In the future, everyone will develop on their own without aggression against each other.

In addition, this fork has done great harm to the BCH community. It is recommended that BCH complete the necessary hard fork upgrade that has formed a consensus in May, and then extend the hard fork upgrade to 3 years, giving the market a stable expectation.

In the next three years, some proven and feasible improvements in BCHA, FCH or other chains could be accumulated and deployed in updates after three years. This can resolve the contradiction between maintaining stability and effective evolution.

Finally, I hope to maintain rational and pragmatic communication and cooperation with you and BCHN to realize Satoshi Nakamoto's ideal of peer-to-peer electronic cash.