funny thing is its the blockstream paid devs that are wanting centralization. mainly to push bitcoin down a rabbit hole to commercialise it and repay their investors.
Gmaxwell proposed anyone not core should ForK off
What you are describing is what
I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
gmaxwell proposed auto rejecting blocks simply because those blocks dont vote for core
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
kind of funny how gmaxwell wants to cause an intentional split just to activate a soft fork.. very counter intuitive
as also shown above, gmaxwell is so desperate and depraved he calls anything not core an altcoin... makes me laugh that he stoops that low to confuse his sheep
it is actually the blockstream paid devs and their interns that have been on a campaign to centralize the blockchain, telling lies, twisting the truth and spreading rumours to try reigning their sheep into the wolfs den
as for the impending replies of the sheep.. distribution vs decentralization are two very different things.
yes bitcoin is distributed. but if they are all blindly following the wishes of just a few devs.. then distribution becomes meaningless because independence is lost