Yup, that's why there is a 75% threshold so your scenario won't happen. 75% is more than enough. It means on the worst case, 75% agreed to leave at most 25% behind. I doubt 25% will stick with the old chain anyway.
The other 25% which are almost 1/3 of the system are being forced to take action. If we end up being a system where the majority can push around the rest, then we are not better than fiat.
The other 25% (of the original sum) is more than 1/3 of the forked system and are being forced to take decide.
25% are exactly 1/4 of the system and not almost 1/3.
And what do you mean with a system where the majority can push around the rest? I guess you never heard of how democracy is actually the best way of ruling a country. I wonder what you would prefer, i guess no dictatorship.
The majority says what will be done which is simply a democratic principle.
Oh look, another BTC doom theorist. Maybe aliens come and steal Gavin and your wallet.
STOP SPREADING FUD!
Two chains, twice the amount of coins. This is not FUD; this is a fact.
We only would have split all coins when all the same coins are on different addresses on each chain. If they are on the same then these coins are safe and for them it would be as if no fork was happening.
Whoever pushes the fork has a strong incentive to see its side of the fork be recognized as the only "universal" bitcoin
Strong incentive to test out this attack vector on Bitcoin.
So then is the segwit softfork an attack vector too or is this different because... it's what i think has to happen?