I'm saying that in the ideal event of a consensual fork, there's no shift in the balance of power or the consensus mechanism.
Yeah of course, if there is consensus (at what ever level that is deemed non controversial), then that seems to be just a reinforcing of the current rules - and even a confirmation of an agreement that the rules are working for that particular application.
I'm also saying that in the event of a contentious fork, that could cause an imbalance and you might actually have a valid point (yay for you).
Of course, I have a point. This is the crux of the argument to determine at what point (or what consensus) threshold a hardfork would be imposed and still be considered to be safe to write off the minority - 95% seems pretty good for those kinds of scenarios, but of course, it could still work out at a lower consensus threshold, even if it would be more risky.
(...)
I doubt that we are done yet, and sure, I am o.k. with agreeing to disagree at some point - even if I might not be clear about which parts we are agreeing to disagree about.
As long as it's clear that a change in consensus is something entirely different to a change in governance, I'm satisfied. If a fork does occur, then we can argue some more about which category it falls into.
For the record, by the way, it only needs to be one block to big enough to break the deadlock but it's still a stupid mechanism to secure the hardfork.
It's tricky, because there has to be a method of preventing replay attacks. Obviously people would be critical of their efforts if they didn't ensure a clean fork. It's almost as though they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. And because the blocksize cap itself was rather a crude cludge to begin with, undoing it probably won't be any more graceful.
