The main part where all your logic fails is where you don’t define “user” and imply it doesn’t…

In all systems, individual people may fall into many roles. You can be a miner, a user, and a business, for example. Miners in this case refer to someone who produces a block by expending work. Miners may or may not be users. User is a pretty lame term, so I can understand the confusion. What I mean by user is someone who accepts Bitcoin in return for other goods or services — e.g. someone who gives the coin economic value.

I’m not sure where you think there is a “vote”. There are no votes. There are simply rules. Sometimes people want to follow different rules. We have Dogecoin, we have Clams, we have Litecoin. There’s no vote to determine who uses what. People simply do.

There are quite strong economic incentives for producers of a good to serve a wider audience than a narrower one when the cost of doing so is low. There are cases where this isn’t the case (another comment about Orthodox Jews is a good one). Small minorities that are insignificant are accounted for in both my explanation and Taleb’s — you need some significant size to be able to influence. You need enough of a stronghold to be able to have influence, but it’s usually less than a majority, at least in the cases when the rules are stricter and easy to enforce (and have no downside for more tolerant majorities).

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.