Quote from: CIYAM on February 02, 2016, 07:25:39 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on February 02, 2016, 07:22:55 AM

I don't see why it is fine for you to run a softfork that activates after 75% of the hashpower is using it or a hard fork that goes life after similar thresholds. Double standards? It would still show that the majority supports something.

All soft forks so far have only been enforced after a 95% threshold (and this will apply with SegWit as well).

The only people trying to push for a 75% hard-fork are Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin XT (the latter being now defunct).

Yeah, though the chances are not fair if you think about it. 75% is the majority of hashpower for sure. That's the first point. Then they can do it.

The otherside will make segwit come with higher threshold and lightning network without decision finding.

The problem is that the core developers block the raising of the blocklimit and they can enforce it. So in fact they force all the rest of the community to follow the way they want it to be. I think they can not complain about classic doing a similar thing. Classic at least would know the majority behind themself at that point. Coredevs don't really care about such decision.

In order to allow a decision there is no other way than to present an alternative. So at the end coredevs complain about the possibility to vote. They decided for themselves and for all to not raise the blocksizelimit. Everyone had to follow. Force. Now a way to find the opinion of the community was found and they complain about that happening since they already did their decision for us all.

No, i think the worse enforcer are the core devs. Deciding for everyone without giving a choice and when someone creates a choice then he wants to break everything in their eyes.