The community is big enough to defend the network.
Having 1-2% of the total SHA256 hashrate is not a technical problem, but it's a huge systemic risk.
In my unhumble opinion, calls to change the POW or decrease block times are attempts to infiltrate BCH & damage it from the inside.I don't necessarily think that's your motivation, but I think that's the origin of the arguments.
This kind of ignorance lead to the failure of BTC. Their propaganda was that "every attempt to rise the blocksize limit (direct on-chain capacity increase) is an attack on #Bitcoin".
My, aren't you saucy today. Well, think what you wish. The block size limit was a hack to protect the fledgling network that was no longer necessary, so I never would argue to keep it.Ultimately, most of the big decisions from the original bitcoin were good. You still haven't explained how a different POW would prevent the same problems. I suspect you cannot.
Please come back when you improved your reading comprehension. Most people believed that rising on-chain capacity is an attack. this is why we are on a minority fork with little hash.
What same problems? it would instantly make the network a lot stronger and better proposition for investors/users. It would enable a positive feedback loop imo.