I support "Bitcoin Classic" (2MB), if the activation threshold is over 95%

[HostFat]

There's no difference between an activation threshold of 75% (or 51%) and 95% because pro-fork miners can just start rejecting blocks from anti-fork miners to increase the percentage. Miner voting is a stupid concept for hardforks -- it's the economy that matters in a hardfork, not miners.

Pro-fork miners need to be over 50% of the power (or the sum) to start having an incentive to rejecting blocks of other miners, otherwise they will have a higher risk of getting orphaned.

Still, as the logic says (and as it was seen at hong kong event), miners are totally afraid of making decisions, because the value of their prize doesn't come from them, but from who accepts their coins.

They will never try to make a hard fork (a new type of Bitcoin token) if they aren't sure that the larger majority of the network (users, exchange, payment processor, etc ...) will accept them.

[iCEBREAKER]

75% is higher than the majority needed to change the constitution in most parliamentary democracies. 

You think that matters in a consensus-critical distributed ledger?

That's adorable!   

No, I was just making an example about how groups of humans function together. Or not, as in this case.

I'd rather be right and a black sheep than succumb to social pressure.  Clearly, you prefer the latter.

Have a good time in the Toominista hive mind.  I'll be over here providing thought leadership for the rest of the flock.   

[jonny1000]

There's no difference between an activation threshold of 75% (or 51%) and 95% because pro-fork miners can just start rejecting blocks from anti-fork miners to increase the percentage.  Miner voting is a stupid concept for hardforks -- it's the economy that matters in a hardfork, not miners.

You are of course correct in that 51% of miners can control all the miner voting.  Implementing a hardfork is a difficult process and a variety of things need to be considered.  Miner voting should not be considered in isolation.

With respect to a one off shift to 2MB, I think there is broad support from users, businesses and miners for this kind of compromise proposal.  However given the controversy, particularity the number of developers who do not want to go down this path, there is elevated risk with this hardfork.  Therefore I think it is prudent to have a mining activation threshold of 95% or more, in order for me to support the hardfork to 2MB.  If miners start orphaning blocks that do not vote their way, many will consider this a serious attack and withdraw support for the hardfork.

However, according to Brian Armstrong the threshold is "only at 70% for classic".

Source: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688428800959332352

I consider 70% dangerously low and demonstrates a lack of confidence in consensus by Classic proponents.  It is therefore important for users and node operators to continue to rally behind Core, to prevent a potentially dangerous and catastrophic loss of consensus.  If Classic adopts a 95% activation threshold, then I may switch to supporting Classic.

[kelsey]

most newer alts get no where, so yeah I'd stick with litecoin over bitcoin classic.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

75% is the majority of the miners, but miners will not move until they are sure that a very large majority of the network will support them.

The will never try create coins that no one will accept. The value of Bitcoin is given by the network (users, exchange, payment processor, etc ...)

Core will make the move to bigger blocks. They wont give up control this easily.

I hope so.

I've done a bit of research & I like the look of SegWit.

[jonny1000]

Looks like Gavin has gone for 75% again.  I cannot understand why such a low threshold is being used.

[iCEBREAKER]

Looks like Gavin has gone for 75% again.  I cannot understand why such a low threshold is being used.

Incompetence or malice?  Gavin should know better, so flip a coin.

I for one am delighted he's using the optimally bad 75% value.

OrganOfCorti mathed the hell out of the issue until there was no room for doubt.

75% maximizes chances (ie, ensures inevitability) of a premature fork that subsequently orphans the attacking chain.

[Carlton Banks]

OrganOfCorti mathed the hell out of the issue until there was no room for doubt.

75% maximizes chances (ie, ensures inevitability) of a premature fork that subsequently orphans the attacking chain.

Now stop that sniggering at the back, it's most unkind  ( )