Quote from: Lauda on May 23, 2016, 11:35:21 PM

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.

Right now there are two pools have ~>24% of the network hashrate, and three additional pools have ~>10% of the network hashrate. The threshold that I propose prevents any one entity from being able to veto a HF. Do you think that any one person (or an entity) should have the power to veto a HF?

Please note that several groups of people would need to be in 75%-80% of agreement, and it would not be 75%-80% of the miners alone. 75%-80% of the miners would need to agree, as well as 75%-80% of the major economic companies, and 75%-80% of other major stake holders.

Quote from: Lauda on May 23, 2016, 11:35:21 PM

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?

I have looked at the facts and have come to that conclusion. To me, it has always been clear that a serious proposal to HF the network to raise the maximum block size will never be released. Based on what AntPool is saying, they will not support SegWit without a HF, and AntPool will most likely be able to prevent SegWit from activating.