Could you explain how that's hypocritical? I don't see it.
I actually think it seems like pretty good evidence. They're adding a (according to the author) questionable feature with notable possible downsides while ignoring a long standing problem with the simple solution because it (allegedly) furthers their goals to have the problem continue to exist.
It's opt in, anyone that wants to accept zero conf can just insist that all transactions don't opt in.
>a long standing problem with the simple solution
Hard forking bitcoin is not simple. It's never been done before on purpose, and many people are extremely hesitant to mess around with a billion dollar system.
Why is it hypocritical? He complains that some transactions took too long to go through. With RBF, those transactions could simply be resent with a higher fee. But if you're against RBF, then you need the original transaction to go through, and you'll have to wait if it had a low fee.
Basically, the problem is caused by his own opposition to RBF, as far as I see.
(Disclaimer: I've been spending less time around the bitcoin community recently, so my information might be out of date. The patch that was committed is definitely opt-in, but I can't guarantee all the mechanics work how I'm describing them.)
I actually think it seems like pretty good evidence. They're adding a (according to the author) questionable feature with notable possible downsides while ignoring a long standing problem with the simple solution because it (allegedly) furthers their goals to have the problem continue to exist.