If hypothetically more then seventy five percent of the miners supported BIP101 after January. Would Core recognize the will of the economic majority and implement BIP101?
You appear to be conflating unlike things here, the BIP101 threshold is "75%" hashpower, which right now means perhaps two or three people at the moment. Two or three people are not an "economic majority" by any definition.
I do not think that seventy five percent of the hash power is controlled by three people. I think that pools operate in a similar fashion to a representative democracy for the miners, so there are thousands of miners represented by ten to twenty pools. In effect the pools act as a proxy for the miners and the miners are a proxy for the economic majority, since the miners are incentivized not to go against the economic majority. This makes consensus an emergent phenomena which is best represented through proof of work.
This is what I believe, obviously you disagree which is fine. However when there is a fundamental disagreement in Bitcoin that is represented by a significant number of its participants, then in this case there does need to be a process to resolve such a disagreement. This is by necessity a political process which can be defined and understood by pre-existing political theory.
What do you propose should be the process for resolving such a fundamental disagreement? Since I always thought and still do think that proof of work is the ideal mechanism for this process. It does seem like you have answered my question and considering my own ideology it does not seem unfair for me to consider your mentality to be totalitarian in the context of Bitcoin. Also why have you not spoken out against the censorship? If you are opposed to the censorship that is currently occurring in the Bitcoin community now then please take the opportunity and speak up against it and allow your voice to be heard.
Allowing the blocks to fill up is in effect fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin, since the intention had always been to allow the blocks to become as big as they needed to be, so that this restriction would not block the stream of transactions so to speak.
Since these are also questions of political philosophy and economics among other disciplines, it is not necessarily the case that the technical experts are in the best position to answer some of these questions. Which is in part why consensus being an emergent phenomena represented through proof of work in order to represent the economic majority, seems to me to be a superior governance mechanism compared to what Core is presently proposing.
If you would implement BIP101 under such conditions you will have my full support. However if you intend to ignore the economic majority and still attempt to push your own agenda while circumventing and undermining the proof of work consensus then I will accuse Core of tyranny and totalitarianism. Which one is it Greg Maxwell, can you answer this question?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I do not understand this statement and I find it offensive. I looked it up on google and the results where primarily comprised of examples of logical fallacy.
After careful consideration I believe that BIP 101 is a seriously poor proposal, and I doubt the system would survive in an interesting form with that in the long run: but I don't care to try to convince you of that; when it comes down to it I'm uninterested in being involved in any system implementing it, and so I won't be. If the Bitcoin goes along with it-- I'll just work on something else. And it's my own free choice and will to decide what I work on in my time, hopefully you agree?
I agree that you have your own freedom of choice that is fine, and I understand what you are saying, if the majority of miners disagree with you whom I think would represent the economic majority then you would stop working on Bitcoin. I would personally not be interested in Bitcoin if it needed a type of centralized authority in order to make decisions for the entire body politic, fortunately there are many alternative cryptocurrencies, there are also alternative paths for Bitcoin as long as enough people realize this, this is why the cryptocurrency revolution will live on no matter what happens, I am confident of this.
(mimicking your approach:) and if you think you can tell me what I can work on, how I can spend my time, and what thoughts or program I can publish on my own sites I will accuse you of tyranny and totalitarianism. Which one is it, person who feels comfortable throwing rocks while hiding behind a pseudonym, can you answer this question?
I certainly never said such things, and you have no grounds accusing me of tyranny and totalitarianism, I am here representing an enlightenment philosophy of freedom and self determination.
I can answer your question, you are free to do whatever you want and I would never suggest otherwise. However you might not be able to convince the economic majority that we need to change Bitcoin into whatever you find more "interesting". Does this then imply that you think that the original vision of Satoshi is "uninteresting"? Since he did support an increased blocksize. Talking about Satoshi, I do not appreciate you implying that I am a coward because I am "hiding" behind a pseudonym.
