Yes it does. 80% of the network said "Either way is fine" 20% said "We want this" The miners chose to say "fuck the 20%, we only care about people with the most money." If that is the system you want, go for it. Just know that means the Mining companies can push a MASF and the network will not resist. Good luck with that.

I give it one cycle before we get tail emissions.

Definitely before the next halving

Don’t feed the trolls….

Not sure why anyone thought that 20% of a consensus protocol could tell everyone else what bitcoin is?

Because the other 80% was neutral... So, that's why.

Not sure that's an accurate characterization given the circumstances. Do you want a consensus protoccol where the majority threshold is 20%?

The way you tell the network you don't want a softfork is a User Rejected Softfork. If you let the miners reject a UASF, you implicitly tell the miners they control bitcoin not the Nodes. The threshold could be 1% if the miners agree with it and the other 99% don't run a URSF.

The implication of this is that any UASF must be explicitly rejected by switching to run a different bitcoin software? Come on man, be real. That is absurd. Rejection is continuing to run whatever bitcoin you're already running; whether it's implied or expressed rejection of the UASF is just semantics. 80% rejected the fork.

I feel like you are misconstruing my point on purpose. Miners rejected the BIP110, not core nodes. In my previous analogy are you under the impression that even a 1% UASF SUPPORTED BY MINERS would fail like BIP 110? Or would running non-URSF be sufficient to reject?

Didn't the blocksize wars prove that miners can't unilaterally push forks? How many nodes are pro-BIP110? (Or were until today?)

No, the Blocksize wars proved that UASFs SHOULD be respected absent a URSF by miners or the Reorg threat would be very detrimental to miners. (BTW there was already PoW code written if the Segwit UASF failed). The whole reason Miners started running BIP91 was because most of their blocks were being rejected. And the MASF failed at less than the 95% threshold. Roughly 20,000 but there's a bunch of reasons node count is hard to determine.

BIP 91 was a miner-coordinated mechanism that activated SegWit on Bitcoin in August 2017 by signaling support (90% hash power) to prevent a chain split with BIP-148 (UASF), though it did not directly activate SegWit itself.

just because 20% were for, that doesnt mean the remaining 80% are against. i would suspect a lot of node runners setup a node some time ago and have just left it to do its thing. apathy is a major flaw in any kind of consensus network, like democracy. sure you might win the election, but if only 30% of the electorate actually voted do you really have a mandate?

Listen man I think you're smart and I like you. Take it easy and get some rest.