Quote from: illinest on February 08, 2016, 12:12:30 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on February 07, 2016, 10:20:42 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 07, 2016, 05:22:22 PM

there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

I tend to agree.

Could you tell us from a technical perspective -- assuming a 75% trigger, what % of the hashpower could conceivably achieve that (accounting for lucky runs, etc)? I would guess closer to 65-70%?

a 70% trigger, just changes a 1000000 into 2000000... which sits as a buffer, miners can still make small blocks nothing will force miners to make blocks over 1mb until they personally choose to(which could be months or years, whenever they choose to). its not a nuclear trigger.. and just a buffer increase when the consensus shows that there is a possibility that capacity may grow soon. even after the 28 days are up, if miners think the risk of orphan is still high due to many other things. they wont push the envelope. and that 2000000 will just sit there as nothing more then a buffer