[three_seagrass]

Semantics. Any hard fork that majority of miners do not accept and support becomes it's own branch and a separate crypto.

This is why I reference the bitcoin block size debacle. Bitcoin Cash was created as a hard fork that miners ultimately did not accept and is now just a dwindling alt coin.

[Taek]

It's not semantics, it's an incorrect worldview. Miners follow revenue. If miners had chosen to mine Bitcoin Cash, all that would have happened is they would have lost a ton of money competing with eachother while the miners who stayed on the original chain raked in hundreds of millions in additional profit.

Segwit2x had 80% hashrate support at the time it was proposed. It also had the support of most of the exchanges and major centralized players in the space. And yet, Segwit2x did not succeed.

Miners don't control Bitcoin.

[lifty]

As far as I remember miners favored the block increase while a critical mass of validating users didn’t.

[three_seagrass]

The distribution and difference in hash power speaks otherwise.

[lifty]

That’s not how it works. Miners follow the chain with the most users and highest economic share. Check this article if you want a more accurate depiction of how it went: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-independence-da...

[three_seagrass]

That's over a year ago. Any remaining miners on bitcoin cash have jumped ship: https://bitcoinist.com/miners-abandon-bitcoin-cash-for-bitco...