As I understand BU, unless economical majority finds certain block size acceptable, it cannot succeed. If there are just 75% miners creating very big blocks, it doesnt really matter if economical majority (miners+exchanges+services+people) doesnt accept these big blocks. I know this looks like potentionally fuzy enviroment with a lot of uncertainity, but it could be said giving miners ability to choose what transactions add to blocks might mean they destroy Bitcoin by just creating empty blocks - and the orphan rate risk with today low fees would suggest such rogue behaviour! So dont expect there is interest for the worst to happen all the time.
My question is still unanswered. How can the 'economic majority' (whatever this is supposed to be) prevent a huge block size that most of the miners and nodes are voting in favor of? I do not have a deep technical background, I can admit that. I have a background in the humanities instead. I have spent most of my time over the last year learning about Bitcoin, I understand the rules of the protocol, even though I might not fully understand how they have been implemented in terms of the code. I think that this does qualify me to discuss the game theory, economics and politics of Bitcoin.
You are absolutely correct that this is a subjective opinion, all of political thought is subjective. If we where arguing socialism vs capitalism, neither one of us can claim objective fact, such theories are completely objective. I think you should try and look at this problem less from the perspective of an engineer and more from the perspective of a philosopher.
My assumption is correct. I'm glad that it is possible to agree on something. However, it is quite hard to view it differently. To become an engineer one has to change how they think, at some point there is no return. You are absolutely correct that this is a subjective opinion, all of political thought is subjective. If we where arguing socialism vs capitalism, neither one of us can claim objective fact, such theories are completely objective. I think you should try and look at this problem less from the perspective of an engineer and more from the perspective of a philosopher.
My point being is that I do not need to have a technical background to answer questions like "who decides" or what the economic policy and governance structure of Bitcoin should be. I could even argue that having a background in the humanities makes me better equipped to answer some of these question which relate more to the macro scale game theory, economics and politics. If you look closer at what I am saying here you can see for yourself what disciplines of thought are best suited for these questions.
This is somewhat true. However, I do not see the need for the average user (not saying that you're one) to know exactly what is what and how what works. 99% people have no idea how fiat nor CC's work either. There's nothing wrong with that; anyone claiming censorship or similar (possibly worse) is a ignorant idiot.
Some corrections to the post; probably more needed.