Quote from: notme on March 30, 2017, 11:59:54 PM

Bitcoin was supposed to save us from the rule of the economic majority.

Like it or not, miner-consensus is the definition of Bitcoin. Read the whitepaper (it's in my sig for your convenience).

It matters what it currently does.

It saves us from the minority making systemic monetary decisions on our behalf. It achieves this by making monetary rules predefined and practically immutable.
It also gives us the monetary sovereignty - practical inability to censor our transactions;
It also allows for a decrease in systemic risks by eliminating some 3rd parties. Achieves that with the help of decentralized consensus. Decentralized consensus also makes it very hard to change the protocol without achieving near-unanimity, as shown with 3 hard-fork attempts and SegWit. In fact, this decentralized consensus is the thing that "saves us from the rule of the economic majority".

Miners are an important, but not a defining part of Bitcoin. Miners merely produce proof of work, give security to the chain, and can be substituted with another group of miners if deemed necessary. But if that has to happen, Bitcoin is not as anti-fragile as I thought.

PS. It's quite ironical that you think Bitcoin is supposed to "save us from the rule of the economic majority", and at the same time seem OK with BU, which is by all means an attempt to force the minority rule on the Bitcoin. Which actually threates the pillars I mentioned above.