Looks like a lot of bullshit, and also misleading to equate "power" to miners and mining. We already learned from the UASF that power in bitcoin (likely also to be true in bcash) is more distributed than just miners being able to dictate outcome, and the most powerful players, overall are the users.. so they can play their little games and try to suggest that miners are all powerful, when they do not have as much power as the misleaders like to propagandize to be the case.
All the UASF did was give the miners motivation to do what the users wanted. If
most of the miners decided to ignore it, the UASF would not have gone anywhere. A chain on the Bitcoin Blockchain cannot advance without at least a few miners cooperating. It also testifies to the fact that although some people complain that BTC mining is overly centralized, none of the miners were willing to risk that they would end up being a lone wolf and have their blocks orphaned. It is clear the miners are still in a healthy competition rather than colluding with one another.
Maybe that is part of my point? You are not going to get 100% of the miners, and even if you get 51%, then what? Rules are going to change based on 51%? I don't think so. In other words, the true resilience of users versus miners has NOT been tested out, yet, and miners did not want to go there.. like you said, which kind of supports my point that incentives are aligned in such a way that the costs of deviating from users may well be way too much for the miners to attempt to test out.
The blockchain can exist without users but
cannot exist without miners!
I doubt that your attempt to extract out certain pieces, and then trying to argue your logic after those kinds of extractions is going to lead you to a correct answer.... You can believe what you want. I already said that it seems that experience has already shown us, including the UASF that incentives are going to push in a direction NOT to kill the golden goose.
I will concede, on the other hand, that all possible scenarios have not yet been tested, but we have a dynamic system and players who respond to other players, so when you try to make an extreme example, like you did with the extraction of certain players, you are creating such an artificial situation that is not going to happen in real life, because in real life you are going to find incremental responses that might either dull or exacerbate a situation - yet in the end, it seems that bitcoin has already established a very strong set of incentives and counter incentives, and those incentives are going to continue to be tweaked with the passage of time... and in the meantime, as investors we can continue to monitor the situation and decide whether we are losing confidence in our investment or whether we need to modify our own behavior in regards to the the direction that we see the incentives going (to the extent that we can see material changes that are significant to us, individually).
