Which means that those with a stake in Bitcoin are better off if a fork
   becomes popular than if an altcoin does, because if a fork becomes
   popular they will already have a stake in the fork, whereas if the
   altcoin becomes popular at the expense of Bitcoin they will have
   nothing. Of course, if a fork undermines faith in Bitcoin without
   becoming popular, everyone will be screwed. But I don't think this is
   likely; either it will become popular and we'll all be better off, or
   it will flop and nobody will care.

   The worst case scenario is that some fatal flaw eventually emerges in
   Bitcoin, one that would not have affected a proposed fork or altcoin
   but that instead wipes out Bitcoin holders and undermines faith in all
   cryptocurrencies.

   On Sun, Jun 28, 2015, 15:52 Sean Lynch <[1]seanl@literati.org> wrote:

     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 <[2]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 <[3]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:seanl@literati.org
   2. mailto:adam@cypherspace.org
   3. mailto:seanl@literati.org