Quote from: DooMAD on March 20, 2019, 08:00:52 PM

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?

Since I'm not sure about the other questions, I'll respond only to this one. I think that it should matter WHO disagrees, not HOW MANY of them do. If these are some random weirdos that some some reason don't want changes, then to hell with them, a soft fork is okay. If among these 5% there are people who've been really contributing to the development and adoption of Bitcoin significantly as well as if these people hold really big amounts of Bitcoin, I think a hard fork is more appropriate. I choose so not only because it seems fair, but because we clearly made a mistake in the past. Segwit was a soft fork which led immediately to Bitcoin cash hard fork and rather suddenly at the end of 2018 to Craid Wright's 'restoration' of the original bitcoin. I am not sure how many new Craig Wrights bitcoin network can handle. So maybe from now on significant changes that have strong opposers should be performed via hard fork only.