Bitcoin scaling debate - can a single exchange shift the balance?

[Windowly]

A very good article was just posted over at Prohashers.
Why a single exchange can trigger adoption of BIP101

He has several good points:

1. Exchanges, not miners give Bitcoin coins value.

2. MIners are naturally very reluctant to change their software or initiate changes.

3. He makes the point that this has been done before:

Exchanges, not miners, have the power to decide which fork of bitcoin is the canonical chain, and this principle has been demonstrated in many altcoins. Cryptsy, for example, singlehandedly reverted an attempted fork of Elacoin by refusing to upgrade its nodes to the new proof-of-stake code. In bitcoin's case, even if miners adopt a different solution, their blocks would be ignored by BIP101-adopted exchanges - and coins that are not listed on any exchanges have no value.

4. For the long term good of the Bitcoin network exchanges should not relinquish their power.

[LiteCoinGuy]

The nodes that really matter are the ones that provide valuable services. It doesn't matter if you upgrade. What matters is if Coinbase, BitStamp, and Blockchain.info upgrade. These nodes provide a lot of the infrastructure for Bitcoin, so if they do not upgrade, Bitcoin New will be a lot less useful. However, these nodes are in it for profit, so they will tend to go where the money is. They cannot necessarily afford to wield the influence they might have at the risk of short-term losses. Therefore, they do not necessarily have as great an effect on the outcome as it might at first seem.

What about the miners? If they refuse to mine on the new chain, that will stop Bitcoin New in its tracks, right? Well no! Miners are in it for the money too, and if Bitcoin Classic cannot support the same hash rate as Bitcoin New, then they put more resources into mining Bitcoin New. Thus, miners also do not necessarily have much of a say in the matter either.

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/wh ... s-bitcoin/