Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 12:48:57 PM

Here's an example: If a change was proposed which would incentivize the miners to authorize it, but wasn't in agreement from the side of the people, what would happen? I guess that the people would split the chain, but if they hadn't enough power to secure it, wouldn't they come to a dead end? Or to change it a little bit, if there were two forks of Bitcoin, wouldn't the people prefer the one that is the most secure?

Food for thought.

Which side do you think would fold first? Would the users want to follow the majority of the miners, but aren't necessarily in agreement with them? IMO, no. Users are far more pragmatic than just going with whatever the miners says. Unless of course, they are able to reach a compromise but it is hardly true that the community only cares about the decisions that the (majority of the) miners make.

If a hypothetical fork were to happen, and that miners were all insistent on a specific fork that isn't in favour of the community (or were in a sense ridden with hidden motives), who suffers more? Miners who are already surviving on thin margins or the general community which doesn't really stand to lose much? I agree that the best case scenario would be cooperation from both parties, but it really doesn't mean that miners has to "authorize" any changes! That is a flawed system and also why we have backup plans to force activation of soft forks.

I thought the idea of UASF during the peak of the block wars would've been a good example of which party stands to lose more by prolonging the fight. They were so adamant on a block size increase. If miners could've successfully coerced the community into adopting a block size increase, then why didn't they go on with it? FWIW: This encompasses the gist behind UASF: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0.