Quote from: Quickseller on May 23, 2016, 11:25:11 PM

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 the chosen threshold is dangerously low.

Quote from: Quickseller on May 23, 2016, 11:25:11 PM

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.

Says who? There are certain people that are still working on the proposal and there is still enough time. Actually, anyone could make a decent HF proposal that would have parameters that most Core contributor would not instantly reject (e.g. low consensus period; low grace period), but people here prefer complaining.

Quote from: countryfree on May 23, 2016, 11:31:18 PM

I'm understanding you so well! It isn't cancelled but it's taking so much time that an average person is forced to think that the whole thing has been killed. I'm not expecting it before the halving.

This deserve an entry in the book of the most ridiculous statements regarding software development. Underlying logic: If project is taking much time ⇒ project is killed. Cheesy