Still backwards. It's not the Core dev team enforcing that process. It's the users who enforce it by running the code. The fact that most of the nodes are running a Core client strongly indicates users like the way you can't change the rules without going through the moderated IRC/mailing list/BIP process. If a majority of network participants didn't like it working that way, it wouldn't.
core had 35% opposition had 65%
yet the 35% still think that core is the prime network
it was a bilateral split that insured the 65% became invisible so that although there were less pools and nodes to count.. the pools making blocks that core seen as visibile instantly became 100%
try reading bip9 bip 148 do some research on bilateral split. and you will see that real true fair consensus was not used. but vote rigging was
you have not really checked out how things have changed since 2013 have you.
did yu know that due to FIBRE the only blocks being pushed out of the ring of mining pools is blocks that strictly follow cores rules. all other blocks get rejected in under 2 seconds. if a pool attempted to make blocks that differ. and keep doing it. they get banned from the network until they comply, thus Fibre forces the pools to follow the rules of core or nver get a block to be part of the chain and thus they are mining without ever getting a reward that matures to be spendable on the chain.
other developers who make nodes. if they did nake their own github and their own bip list and promote a upgrade that differs from cores roadmap. first needs to follow cores rules to just be allowed and seen by the networ and can only flag their desire. but has to flag using a bip9 process that core have to acknowledge. then it has to get enough nodes and enough pools to also run that same codebase to out power core..
well guess what. bitcoin ABC(cash) got 65% core got 35% and core simply done a bilateral split on the whole process.. and people still think core is "the network". so by core removing the 65% opposition. it automatically got cores BIP9 to see the remaining nodes co-operating and being seen by other core nodes equalled over 95% although there was in reality far more nodes/opposing pools that were simply invisible to bip9
core having 35% (letss say 7 pools out of 20(cant be arsed to count the pools with less than 1% block mining network hash power))
now imagine samson mow (UASF/blockstream) and bloq deciding to make a second choice to drama the sheep into another field. and made it so pools that didnt flag for segwit moved over too
The UASF (BIP 148) approach to achieving a chain where 100% of blocks signal support for Segwit is relatively simple.
On August 1st if Segwit itself is not already at the status of locked-in or activated, any node running the BIP 148 code will begin orphaning blocks that do not signal for Segwit using bit 1.
if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
(nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
(!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && // Segwit is not locked in
!IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) ) // and is not active.
{
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
}
}
thus on that day if pools were not scared and continued to refuse to join the 7 core loyalist pools they would get their blocks
rejected.so when the rejects occured and fibre simply ban hammered the pools off the core network of those not UASFing.. all that was left mining the core network were segwit supporting pools. and on that day far less than 20 pools were mining (for example 7 pools out of 7 pools=100%)
..all the core support nodes got to see was blocks made by segwit supporting pools. thus although the pool count dropped, the percentage support jumped to 100% hense why segwit got locked in and activated only a few weeks after august..
it is real funny people think after months of 35% community consensus. it jumped to 100% in a couple weeks. and people still think that it meant evryone loved it.. no the majoirty were just made invisible so that only one fanclub could be seen
yes core done a rigged election
the users had no consensus election. all the users seen was 35%-100% jump.
its really worth you actually reading some code and looking at some stats. ahd how things like bips, and fibre work. it will completely shock you how things have changed since 2013