Quote from: RealBitcoin on July 18, 2016, 12:54:20 PM

Quote from: Lauda on July 18, 2016, 12:45:12 PM

Interesting comparison and pictures OP. However, I don't see the viability of a secondary chain being alive long enough. The issue that I see is that a duplication of the chain, and a situation in which both are alive, would cause tremendous chaos and most likely ruin Bitcoin. I think that it is in everyone's best interest (including the people led by greed) to avoid such a situation (excluding the people that are trying to ruin Bitcoin).

Yes it would cause chaos, and in the end both chains would lose to Litecoin or other coins, and bitcoin would be over.

I doubt people would reach a quick consensus in a few days to save bitcoin, so a hardfork would definitely ruin bitcoin.

We shall see what will happen to ethereum (grab your popcorn), and we will have experimental evidence, not just trollings around here.

silly silly silly..

a hard fork only happens AFTER consensus is reached.
put it this way. miners are not going to make bigger blocks at 50%, 60%, 70% or even 80% due to risk of the network orphaning their hard work..

technically they could make bigger blocks at the 75% "warning period". but they are smarter then that.

what will happen logically realistically and practically.. is that at 75%(block flag consensus) there will be a big social push to tell people that things are going to change. and get people prepared. miners have time to upgrade (25% remaining) but it will wait for 95% of the entire network(nodes) before miners would risk making bigger blocks.

the 75% threshold is just a neon sign of the miners.. based on blocks with flags... simply put, a glowing big fat sign to warn people of changes.. but miners wont push bigger blocks until they see the USER node count (view able on bitnodes) showing a high upgrade count

the 75% is about blocks..
the 95% is about compatible nodes.

2 distinctly different things