Thank you for degrading the conversation with your sophomoric pedantry, which is easily mitigated by appeal to the comparably vast wisdom of Yahoo Answers:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110307170939AA7BPmyIt is short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative."
In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence.
But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time.
You don't get to count agnostic/DGAF votes in the pro-fork column. They are functionally equivalent to anti votes, because all reject (whether actively or passively) Gavin's BloatCoin proposition, and thus affirm (implicitly or explicitly) status quo.
This You cannot prove a negative thing, as you present it, is the basis of most religions, where there's a claim: God exists. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, because, as you say, you don't have information everywhere in the universe to analyze it and show that God is not there. However, if you base all your further work on the assumption that God does actually exist, anything you come up with will be just faith, with nobody being able to prove or disprove what you're claiming. Science doesn't work that way.
Now, consider this analogy. People saying that they don't know or don't care about the 20 MB fork is comparable to asking people if they support transitioning to IPv6. Most people would answer What is IPv6? I've never heard of it, but that doesn't automatically turn them against IPv6. Why would it? I don't understand your reasoning here.
I hope you never serve on a jury. The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'
Wait, what? How do you reach that conclusion based on any of what I have been saying so far?