Unfortunately it is impossible (or nearly impossible) to measure the "majority" in bitcoinland.
That's why statements similar to the statement from the person that I've quoted are ridiculous. They are backed up by nothing.
It is also why I think it is a bad idea to say that we need a "super duper" 99% majority of
every type of Bitcoin stakeholder to agree to a change in order to implement a HF, and call this "consensus". This is going to result in absolutely nothing ever getting done, and will only result in uncertainty. There are simply too many potential entities that can veto any HF proposal. It would be much better to define "consensus" as a majority of each stakeholder-types have a super majority of similar entities agree to a HF, and have it be so that not even a single stake-holder type can veto a HF proposal. For example, "consensus" would be better defined (in the context of Bitcoin) as being 75%-80% of major economic companies, minor economic companies, miners, bitcoin experts, ect, and that no one of these groups can veto a HF (so if the miners do not like a HF, but everyone else does, then tough luck).
I would say that it looks like that they figured out that Blockstream et al. has any intention of actually delivering a HF that increases the maximum block size, and they want to be sure that they will not get tricked into giving Blockstream et al. what they wanted and not get what they bargained for in the end.
AndreasMAntonopoulos I believe this is called a "Mexican Standoff". No segwit no HF. No HF, no segwit. Compromise time.
Seems like things are going in the right direction, not.
It looks like to me that we are not getting even a HF proposal to raise the maximum block size (let alone an actual maximum block size increase) - not that this was ever going to happen, and nor will we get SegWit. Unfortunately I would not be surprised if some alternative to Bitcoin comes along that is scalable.