I think before people start using the word "consensus" they should actually read the one use of that word in the whitepaper.

Consensus is not a thing you achieve before a change, it is a thing that happens after a change.

The BitcoinXT thing is a perfect example of consensus as envisioned in the whitepaper. Someone builds a new version of Bitcoin and puts it out there. The users and miners of Bitcoin vote with their feet (ie: processing power) and reject it, and we move on.

The idea that we need to discuss a change until we achieve consensus is deeply flawed (and the most bearish indicator for Bitcoin to-date IMO). Stop looking for agreement. Just build it, ship it, and see who uses it. Just like Mike and Gavin did, and as Satoshi predicted.

The pussyfooting around we've had for the last 4 years with these network-breaking softforks is not what should be happening - i.e". make a change but hack it so we don't hardfork". There should be regular hardforks and the users (merchants, miners, PSPs) of Bitcoin should be set up to work around them. The lack of them makes the network weaker, not stronger.

Now we have experienced Bitcoiners literally and figuratively (and proudly!) sitting on their hands until the core devs utter their next commandment. And woe betide anyone else who drops a new version of core in the meantime.

I am convinced that the consensus concept is broken and misunderstood by the community. I think people are afraid of forks because they fear it will damage the public perception and price. I think that the lack of progress in the technology is damaging adoption WAY more.

Just my 0.02c