bitcoin is not a democracy.
it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)
else status quo.
Bitcoin is form of democracy, it has it build right into the algorithm, Bitcoin will reflect the will of the economic majority.
It only requires 51% of the mining power to fork Bitcoin so repeating that it is a consensus only defined by 90-95% is meaningless. You are ignoring the reality that consensus is often impossible among large groups of people.
A 51% fork is righteously called an attack on the network.
Any change that involves less than a super-majority agreement is to be considered contentious and a subsequent fork is to be considered an altcoin if it results in the existence of two separate networks.
For that reason, Bitcoin is not ruled by the majority and therefore is not a democracy.
Don't confuse consensus and unanimity. No one said changes require 100% support.
Here we go again, back to claiming that the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network. I do not agree with calling a blockchain fork an altcoin since this is factually incorrect. I suppose however that if Bitcoin did split because of the blocksize debate then you would be in the minority. According to your own logic then the small block version of Bitcoin would then be the altcoin, I do not agree with this but it is an extension of your own logic. The majority of miners now support increasing the blocksize after all, whether you like it or not, this will happen.
51% of the HASHING POWER is NOT the economic majority. God damn you fail so hard.
I never claimed that it was.
The miners don't decide what chain is valid, the nodes & the investors (the real economic majority) do.
Funny how you are now completely neglecting the miners as part of the economic majority, they most certainly are an important part of the economic majority.
The current standstill is not my favored outcome but the one of the economic majority as it currently exists. Until every actor in the ecosystem come to consensus on how to move forward then status quo will prevail.
It seems like you are not seeing the writing on the wall, the economic majority now favors increasing the blocksize. This is why the majority of the miners are now voting to increase the blocksize and most of the important companies and individuals have expressed their support for an increase as well.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/You addressed my argument that a 51% hashing power fork was an attack on the network by saying that I claim " the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network."
I would presume this mean you consider 51% of the hashing power to represent somehow the "economic majority". If you don't then may I suggest you explain yourself in a more intelligible way because this is not the first occurrence of you denying claims you've previously made and at this point we can only assume you are anything but honest in your arguments.
Miners would not fork the network without the support of the economic majority, since they are incentivized to do what is good for Bitcoin. Unless there is a true 50/50 type split which would have to be due to fundamental ideological disagreements. Even in this scenario which I think is unlikely and most likely not the case with this blocksize debate, this is still justified because it would be the best way to resolve disagreements without tyranny of the majority. I found this aspect of Bitcoins design rather appealing actually.
The miners are certainly part of the economic majority but they are second level actors in that regard. They enforce the rules agreed on by the network peers & the holders. Don't even pretend you have the ability to debate this. It is not up for debate. It is how Bitcoin operates.
It is not up for debate? The miners can fork the network and create the longest chain. Individuals as nodes/peers can freely choose what side of the fork to support even if it means ignoring the longest chain in this case, which would lead to the shorter chain to become more valuable and eventually therefore gain more hashing power becoming the more dominant chain again. Checks and balances you could say and divisions of power.
The miners however are incentivized to support the economic majority because that is where the value lies and how the incentives are aligned. However it is the miners that initiate or trigger this process by "voting" with their hashing power. This is why BIP101 is triggered by the miners and BIP100 should be as well. Proof of work is perfectly suited to this role within Bitcoin, as it has always intended to be.
If the economic majority supported a block increase it would've happened already. What is so hard to understand about this?
This is not the case because it takes time for all of the parties involved to speak to each other and reach consensus. The miners also need time because they need to be very sure that they are doing the right thing and whether the economic majority is truly on their side which is not always easy to determine. Furthermore the BIP101 fork can not be triggered before January and BIP100 has not been implemented yet.
Nodes are not buying it. A majority of Bitcoin developers are not either. An important number of high-net worth individuals (yes in BTC) are vehemently opposed. Clearly the economic majority is opposed to any change until a better proposition comes along. Any time you attempt to argue the opposite you just look stupid.
Evidence points towards the contrary with the mining majority wanting to increase the blocksize and the number of important companies and influential people that support increasing the blocksize.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/It's time you get a grip with reality and stop supporting such a helpless cause. I have nothing against you supporting larger blocks but by now you should understand that it is in the best interest of your ideology to shift your focus to better, more productive alternatives.
I support bigger blocks and the only implementation that increases the blocksize is BIP101, so I support BIP101 until BIP100 is implemented, which I favor or until something better comes along. I do not see how this is not productive if my goal is to increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain directly. Supporting these implementations certainly is productive towards increasing the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain directly while maintaining decentralization and financial freedom.