- Do you think freedom is one of Bitcoin's most important qualities? Or is it more important that we ensure everyone is happy and agrees with any changes? If you had to choose, which takes priority? Freedom? Or ensuring everyone agrees?
- Do you think "consensus" should always mean a hardfork at 95% agreement? Even if that means that just 6% of the network can then effectively veto any changes and stagnate progress? Or are softforks perfectly acceptable as well? How do you feel about users who express the belief that softforks effectively turn them into second-class-citizens if they don't want to to upgrade? Do they have cause to complain? Or is the fact that they can remain on this blockchain and continue transacting as they always have done a sufficient compromise? Is it right for some users to move forward with a change if others haven't given their permission for that change? Does this weaken or bypass consensus?
I think freedom should be above all else. The openness of Bitcoin encourages it, and there's no way to make everybody happy anyway.
If that much consensus is necessary, I don't think the community can go anywhere. As far as I'm concerned, everyone can hard fork all they want; the community can support whichever aligns with their ideals the best. There are going to be a lot of fractures, but it's better than staying in an unhappy marriage right? You also get to measure
real consensus this way, from actual end users. Forcing people to agree to whatever compromise just to keep the community together feels a little too much like government to me.
People who
choose not to upgrade in cases of soft forks can't really complain because it's their choice at the end of the day. They can't force individuals with different ideals who want different things to grant them anything more than backwards compatibility.