I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC
subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.

A hardfork is safe when 100% of (economically relevant) users upgrade. If
miners don't upgrade at that point, they just lose money.

This is why a hashrate-triggered hardfork does not make sense. Either you
believe everyone will upgrade anyway, and the hashrate doesn't matter. Or
you are not certain, and the fork is risky, independent of what hashrate
upgrades.

And the march 2013 fork showed that miners upgrade at a different schedule
than the rest of the network.
On May 7, 2015 5:44 PM, "Roy Badami" <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:

>
> > On the other hand, if 99.99% of the miners updated and only 75% of
> > merchants and 75% of users updated, then that would be a serioud split of
> > the network.
>
> But is that a plausible scenario?  Certainly *if* the concensus rules
> required a 99% supermajority of miners for the hard fork to go ahead,
> then there would be absoltely no rational reason for merchants and
> users to refuse to upgrade, even if they don't support the changes
> introduces by the hard fork.  Their only choice, if the fork succeeds,
> is between the active chain and the one that is effectively stalled -
> and, of course, they can make that choice ahead of time.
>
> roy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>