Not more? Consensus is certainly at 1 MB then. As I suspected. To break the rules of the blockchain, e.g. by increasing the blocksize, increasing the money supply or inflation rate, etc, 10% is not enough. Neither is 51% or 75% or even 90%. You need 100% consensus.
100% consensus is most probably unachievable because of the ability of a single powerful miner to destroy consensus.
I assume we are talking about
miner consesus, right ?
No, miners don't matter. If a miner break consensus, users and merchants won't accept their blocks. They will just make themselves irrelevant, mining worthless coins.
1. But that is not really important. The last time hard fork happened (because of network malfunction), the network upgraded, resolved itself & reached "consensus" in around 6 hours. So miner consensus can happen almost instantly. Nobody wants to be on the losing side of the fork - that is pretty obvious.
Nobody wants to have software with critical bugs. It is quite easy to achieve consensus about that. I remember the one back in 2010 when someone discovered they could make 184 billion BTC for themselves in the coinbase transaction due to an integer overflow bug. That one was resolved quickly as well. In both cases the hard fork was caused by an unintentional bug. Bitcoin is still i beta.
Irrelevant. My dictionary still have the same defintition of consensus as it always had.
So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad with power.
I don't see how what
you think someone else claim is relevant at all here. (Read again what he wrote is not what you think he claims.)
Bitcoin is built on some hard rules which cannot change unless all users agree to the change. As long as some (or in this case most) users don't agree to change the rules, it is impossible. You can only add new more restrictive rules, not change or remove existing rules. People who cannot live with the rules as they are, have to use something else. There are plenty of altcoins to choose from, and it shouldn't be a problem to anyone.
Last time I remember, Bitcoin was all about what majority wants. When minority wants to change rules of the game then it is called a HARD FORK and they go their separate way.
I can never remember bitcoin beeing about what a majority wants. Bitcoin wasn't designed that way. Can I run a campaign to make 100 BTC extra for UNICEF? Just 100 BTC? That's not much, and I'm sure it will help a lot of children. I will probably get at least as as many supporters as those who want to change the maximum block size rule. Perhaps make it 1000 BTC. Or even more. It is a good cause.
The only change a majority can do, is to impose new rules, i.e. stricter rules which will be imposed on new blocks. Blocks adhering to the new rule will still be valid to old nodes, but blocks may have to confirm to an extra rule to be accepted by upgraded nodes. This is called a soft fork. Soft forks are typically activated only after 95% of the hashpower enforce the new rules. Otherwise false confirmations may show up to old nodes whenever an old node mine a block.