POLL: What is the reason hard forks require broad consensus?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Of course. Still with there being multiple choices it sounds like by "dictator" here we really mean "suggester."

Not entirely right. With that he would be implementing code which he wanted to (who knows what could come out of this).

By "implementing" I assume you mean suggesting. Or do I have this wrong and he is able to force downloads?

[1715093767]

1715093767

[1715093767]

1715093767

[1715093767]

1715093767

[1715093767]

1715093767

[1715093767]

1715093767

[Adrian-x]

Bitcoin IS a consensus network.

Consensus is literally the fundament upon which the whole thing is based. If the nodes didn't agree on who owns which Bitcoin, then it's not even proper money, because there is no ledger.

Consensus among who is the question?

Users of the network
or
Developers of protocol.

[Peter R]

I think the way the OP has phrased the poll biases the results.  Consider the debated block size limit hard fork for example:  

The way the poll is written, it sounds that by "hard forking" (i.e., to a larger block size limit) that we would be changing something about Bitcoin's nature (we indeed would be changing a line of code in the reference client that has historically rarely been used but that is only a small part of Bitcoin's nature).

Remember, by not forking in the case of the block size limit we are changing something about Bitcoin's nature too.  We are completely changing the economic model that Bitcoin has operated under over its entire history (that the free-market equilibrium block size was smaller than the limit).

I would argue that forcing a new-economic paradigm for Bitcoin by not changing that line of rarely-used code is a vastly greater change to Bitcoin's nature.  I bet if the poll was written this way, the poll would show support for changes to code that preserve Bitcoin's nature.

In other words, it is changes to Bitcoin's nature that require broad consensus.

[Lauda]

By "implementing" I assume you mean suggesting. Or do I have this wrong and he is able to force downloads?

Implementation has nothing to do with the download of clients. Implementing code would mean pushing something controversial and releasing a new version. He has also once mentioned something about ignoring the longest valid chain. In other words he could implement something bad with partial support (bankers would love e.g. blacklisting). The others would have to follow or risk total chaos once the network splits. In Core you can't just implement/push whatever you want.
You need consensus because we're using a consensus based algorithm.