Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 11:04:48 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 10:58:56 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 10:17:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 17, 2015, 03:24:40 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 17, 2015, 01:49:37 PM

btw the recent update is a soft fork yet will still go into effect only with 95% hashpower.

Yet XT will hard fork with only 75%.

Trying to fork without consensus is damaging and irresponsible. Bitcoin was designed to prevent a majority forcing their will on a minority (if it comes to that).

I hope the contentious hard fork will not be successful.

It is impossible for a majority to force their will on a minority in Bitcoin, you can simply choose not to run the code. Saying that we must have an absolute consensus is damaging and irresponsible

95% is not absolute consensus. 75% is too low.

And yes the intention is to force me as a Bitcoin user onto XT/ 101 big blocks. The hypothetical intention as clearly stated by Gavin is to create hard fork with the thinking that remaining services and miners will move onto the new fork and the old one will die. Anybody who is not happy (and that would no doubt be at least a significant minority) will be left with nothing and forced to use big blocks.

The minority chain is less likely to die with 75% consensus compared to 95% consensus. Having 75% consensus increases the likelihood of the old chain surviving if enough people choose to support it, which is the opposite of what you are claiming is the intended effect.

But we dont have to speculate about intent. Gavin stated the intent clearly. You are right and I disagree with Gavin. I told him so. I believe that if it comes to it there will be a split and two chains will emerge.

Gavin does not think that that will happen and his intent as he states is for that not to happen.

As an aside, I think it is inevitable, that at some point Bitcoin will split when visions for its future (about any issue) are split and incompatible. This does not have to happen now tho.

I actually agree with you that a split is inevitable, in the future. I also agree with you that this does not need to happen now. However I do think that if that is what the economic majority desires and there is a fundamental difference of believe in a significantly large enough group of people then a split would be justified, I hope that is not the case.