“If a majority of bitcoin miners “vote” for a particular upgrade then by definition this is the new version of bitcoin.”

Brian, if a majority of soda companies vote to introduce a controversial ingredient into their formulas do you think that changes the definition of “Cola”? I suppose an argument could be made that it does. More important to consider though is do you think users will be compelled to buy and drink that new cola? If a large portion of the market decides it doesn’t like that new ingredient will companies still have a majority vote?

The minority that sides with the needs and desires of customers will ultimately prevail. Unless planning on partnering with regulators to remove the “voluntary” part of voluntary trade, producers are ultimately answerable to consumers/users.

Ignore the economic majority at your own peril. For those that would suggest miners are the economic majority, consider the close to $100 billion valuation vs. the collective investment of miners. There’s no contest.

On a separate note, failure to mention Satoshi’s “1 CPU, 1 Vote” and unwanted miner centralization, into too few hands and regulatory domains, is to not paint a accurate picture.

Mark my words, if S2X succeeds it will have proven that Bitcoin is a failure. It will have been proven no different to it’s predecessors in being subject to the whim of cartels, rather than the will of the people. The experiment will have failed and your businesses based on it will eventually reflect this failure. Though that eventuality will likely be swift as regulators descend on the NYA signers to influence the next state mandated changes, which will likely be to remove all of Bitcoin’s primary differentiators: permissionlessness, censorship resistance, anonymity and of course rule by consensus which the NYA signers will have already tackled themselves.