>But can you patch the ridiculous "find next" shortcut key to ctrl + f/enter from ctrl + f/ctrl + g?
Yes this is one of the things that I am really annoyed with gedit. All searches (to my knowledge) in browsers and IDE's work by pressing enter to get to the new search entry.
The only exception which comes to my mind is vim which has 'n' to go to the next search entry(also completely different to gedit). But in comparison vim, excepts the user to learn a lot of new commands, gedit on the other hand should imo follow the simplicity of other GNOME apps.
To search a keyboard shortcut in the manual and then memorize it for such a simple editor is just tedious and irritating.
So you say mining of Bitcoin only follows the market value?
Isn't it at least to a large degree the other way round? That market value is following based on what is the most mined chain?
If there's a split and 80% of mining power switches to one branch. Then the 20% branch loses a lot of utility for at least some time. It now has five times slower transactions until difficulty gets adjusted(or you change the proof of work of bitcoin, which itself can be precarious). And now to a minor degree the minority chain has also less safety (less hashing power).
Meanwhile why should anyone buy or send Bitcoins at the point of a split? There's a real chance that one branch will die and then you can lose the coins. The best strategy is probably to wait. So the market at least is in some way inhibited during a split.
On the other hand I'd argue miners of the minority chain have a lot of pressure to change branches. Market is not yet a good indicator only hashing power and they'll lose money if they don't continue to mine on the more profitable chain. Their safest bet is to change chains. Also they know that other miners of the minority chain think probably similarly. That's why imo in Bitcoin history every fork/split was resolved very quickly and a branch "won".
All the definitions I heard are able to be manipulated easily:
-The/r/bitcoin consensus? Is mainly in existence because of censorship
-User wallets online? Can be easily created with AWS instances
-Bitcoin core? Who decides these bunch of people are in charge to represent all users and not a bunch of other developers?
One obvious alternative is to let Bitcoin follow economic incentives: Bitcoin miners gain Bitcoin, so they have a vested interest that their income is and stays valuable. Thus why not let the miners decide. This is also the only place where you can't influence/manipulate Bitcoin easily.