Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 17, 2015, 07:17:08 PM

Your analogy is invalid because "most people" don't GAF about BTC, much less running a node or the health of the network.

Well, the option DGAF is for people who don't give a fuck, so there's this tautology. Where is this going?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 17, 2015, 07:17:08 PM

If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.

This is a fallacy. Person A doesn't give a fuck about the decision, as long as she can transfer money to her family in the other side of the world. If having a 20 MB block is the way to do it, or if sidechains are implemented at last, she doesn't care. She has NO OPINION on the matter.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 17, 2015, 07:17:08 PM

Whether you are explicitly or implicitly against the fork (IE anti or DGAF) is not logically nor functionally relevant.

While this is technically true, your assumption that people undecided are implicitly against the fork is wrong.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 17, 2015, 07:17:08 PM

In my legal analogy, it's like disputing the non-guilt of the accused just because the jury didn't explicitly vote innocent. You can't equate not-guilty votes with not-not-innocent; that's isn't how it works. Not-guilty verdicts are functionally equivalent to findings of innocent, but we don't ask for innocent verdicts because you can't prove a ~~negative~~ universal, existential negative.

If the jury votes neither guilty nor not guilty, then a verdict can't be made, because there's a I don't know in there, and the legal system requires the jury to have a definite answer. I don't know where you come up with this not-not-innocent nonsense.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on March 17, 2015, 07:17:08 PM

That's why Gavin is wrong to claim DGAF votes for the pro-fork side.

Again, Gavin didn't claim the votes. I did, just to illustrate the ridiculousness that you are trying to do.