Quote from: BitUsher on January 22, 2016, 08:09:19 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 07:56:44 PM

It is easy to say "nothing should be done without consensus"
if you're one of the parties holding up the consensus which
is exactly what core has been doing.

My position is quite the opposite in that I support the right of other implementations to openly fork the code and tray and take over governance. Individuals without consensus should have this right, they should also be free to choose not to upgrade thus indirectly causing a fork, or choose to cooperate and submit BIPs or leave.

The only reason the 95% of last mined blocks is mentioned is because we understand that it is not really measuring the vote of the people, nodes or economic majority but a less accurate indirect approximation of such a measurement by miners. Bitcoin classic should have the right to fork at 51% or 75% .... these are all arbitrary numbers... but since they are indirect approximations , the lower the number the greater a chance there will be two competing coins. This isn't a threat but a reality. In the short term it would be chaotic , messy , and both sides would certainly lose a lot of value/or one side dying off ... this isn't completely bad , but can create PR problems with investor confidence.

well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number.
I think two coins would be bad. one united bitcoin is ideal.