That's why I said "their money and...", but you're right, the "and"
   doesn't need to be there. Just the money.

   On Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 15:16 Adam Back <[1]adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

     It's not the miners that count, rather than economic majority.  It's
     a
     surprising fact, but here's how it works: lets imagine 75% of the
     miners decided they'd change the economic rules, in a protocol
     incompatible way.  Result: the miners form a new alt-coin with no
     users.  Bitcoin difficulty adjusts, and carries on as if nothing
     happened.  The hostile miners earn 25 forkcoins which have  a market
     price of 0.  They are burning electricity so they either go bankrupt
     or the give up and rejoin the network.
     There's a lot to game theory that is subtle.  It could do with a FAQ
     writing on it really.
     Adam
     On 28 June 2015 at 23:04, Sean Lynch <[2]seanl@literati.org> wrote:
     > By the way, "consensus" is a red herring thrown out by those who
     never want
     > there to be a fork. There can never be consensus for a fork,
     because
     > otherwise it wouldn't be a fork. Claiming there needs to be
     consensus is
     > just a way to try to make it look like any fork is somehow
     unilateral and
     > undemocratic. But to succeed, any fork by definition needs broad
     support. In
     > fact, it's about the most democratic you can get: people put their
     money and
     > their mining power on the fork they want. It's those opposing any
     fork who
     > are the authoritarians. Obviously, when you consider who's making
     the death
     > threats.

References

   1. mailto:adam@cypherspace.org
   2. mailto:seanl@literati.org