Quote from: CIYAM on January 19, 2016, 04:21:04 PM

Quote from: Balthazar on January 19, 2016, 04:19:01 PM

I don't support this so-called "Bitcoin classic", this idea seems completely idiotic for me. But this is just an opinion and such issues should be resolved by vote. DDoS attacks, ad hominem statements or whatever similar tactics are no better than assassination of opposition figures in the real life. This kind of behaviour is childish and unconstructive.

The problem is that how do we vote?

The only decentralised method that exists today is actually Bitcoin - but if we are not going to use Bitcoin to vote about Bitcoin then I think we have a problem.

Yes, you are correct. I'm always open to reading a whitepaper of some other decentralized and anonymous voting method resistant to sybil attacks but using consider.it to determine the consensus rules is indeed foolish.

The vote is the longest valid PoW chain , and is ultimately decided by 51% of the full nodes(not the miners). 75% or 95% of the mined blocks within the last 1k blocks is simply an indirect way of approximating node support for a fork. These are arbitrary numbers. Selecting too low of a number indicates you feel it is fine to ostracize the minority, picking an extremely high percentage indicates that you believe that you must have almost complete economic consensus before creating a hard fork and breaking consensus rules.