Quote from: DooMAD on July 10, 2017, 05:59:31 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 10, 2017, 05:15:42 PM

[edited out]

OMFG learn to read, already. Where did I say that was the only way it could play out? I said if it happens, it's not a change of governance. If or whether it happens with 99% support or 51% support, longest chain wins if it has sufficient nodes and tx. How is that simple concept so hard for you to wrap your head around? I even said you don't have to follow along, so I can't understand why you're repeating my same point back to me like some brain damaged parrot.

If we are saying the same thing with different words, then maybe we agree? Why do I get the feeling that we don't agree? Must just be me, no? We are arguing over semantics.. Oh?

Quote from: DooMAD on July 10, 2017, 05:59:31 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 10, 2017, 05:15:42 PM

[edited out]

Since analogies only seem to cause you to get even more lost on what the point actually is, I won't bother in future. I'm not saying all forks are consensual, again, learn to read.

Seems to me that you were suggesting a hardfork that would be consensual without really defining what consensual would be except that people would like to follow it... for you consensual seems to be anything that people follow, go figure!!!

Regarding my reading, if you are making arguments that are all over the place and internally contradicting, then of course, you should expect that I might get confused about what point(s) you are attempting to make.

Quote from: DooMAD on July 10, 2017, 05:59:31 PM

I'm saying that in the ideal event of a consensual fork, there's no shift in the balance of power or the consensus mechanism.

Yeah of course, if there is consensus (at what ever level that is deemed non controversial), then that seems to be just a reinforcing of the current rules - and even a confirmation of an agreement that the rules are working for that particular application.

Quote from: DooMAD on July 10, 2017, 05:59:31 PM

I'm also saying that in the event of a contentious fork, that could cause an imbalance and you might actually have a valid point (yay for you).

Of course, I have a point. This is the crux of the argument to determine at what point (or what consensus) threshold a hardfork would be imposed and still be considered to be safe to write off the minority - 95% seems pretty good for those kinds of scenarios, but of course, it could still work out at a lower consensus threshold, even if it would be more risky.

We both likely recognize that there is a continuum here.. The lower the consensus threshold in a contentious hardfork, the more risk of an actual chain split... The inverse is true, too. The higher the consensus threshold, the less risk of an actual chain split. The actual number in which to achieve nonsplitting is not any kind of exact science and reasonable people will likely have different opinions about making such predictions regarding how others might behave, whether that is a minority of 5% or a minority of 20%, or some in-between variant.

Quote from: DooMAD on July 10, 2017, 05:59:31 PM

Because if some of the users securing the chain choose to fork away, that might well have a bearing on subsequent forks being easier to achieve if there are less voices of dissent.

It does not really matter that much, and maybe there is a kind of inevitability that some users are going to feel more strongly about forking and less value about keeping the chain together. Maybe it would stop at two splits, but maybe there would be further splits. It is not easy to determine. We could imagine that having more than 1000 alts, already that there would be considerable desire to NOT create another alt - but the problem with this thinking is that we cannot really control human behavior, and any fork splitting might not be calculated to create another alt, but instead of the belief that they are going to become the longest chain, as we already seem to agree on some variation of this.

Quote from: DooMAD on July 10, 2017, 05:59:31 PM

So if you're quite finished grabbing the wrong end of the stick and then trying to stab me with it, I suggest we just agree to disagree.

I doubt that we are done yet, and sure, I am o.k. with agreeing to disagree at some point - even if I might not be clear about which parts we are agreeing to disagree about. Seems that we are largely disagreeing about semantics including what is potentially likely outcomes in the future based on some of the cards that are on the table or what might be in the deck or in the hands of the other players including whether the other players are bluffing or if they have sufficient cards to either win or to double down with confidence.

Hahahaha... some of what we are arguing about seems to be unknowns or how we think another player may play his hand. What a dumb argument you started.!!!! Tongue