Also, there is no such "voting on which branch to use", I'm not sure what you are referring to or if you're mixed up with another cryptocurrency. In Bitcoin, the valid branch is the one with the most proof of work. There is no concept of voting.
That's incorrect. Non-mining nodes are passive, they do not cast votes.
> A chain with more proof of work, but that is violating the rules that nodes have formed consensus on, is ignored.
That is correct. Non-mining nodes are programmed to reject invalid blocks... or they can accept them if they want. It's of no importance because what they do has no influence on the rest of the network.
Well you're right in that it doesn't look like casting a ballot in a box, but in practice they very much do "vote" in the sense that they decide on what rules are valid or not. This is what prevents miners from colluding and changing the rules of Bitcoin, the nodes would reject their chain. This is also what prevents developers from introducing a backdoor into the network by releasing malicious code. Node operators can vote to reject a change by not upgrading their nodes.
Inversely, if there is a rule change and the nodes of the network go along with the rule change (by their decision on what to reject or accept), then this is akin to a motion passing. The validity of blocks is not some ethereal thing, and neither are Bitcoin rules written on stone tablets by God. These things are the result of very human deliberation and code commits (by humans).
> very much do "vote" in the sense that they decide on what rules are valid or not.
Yes, they decide for themselves. Their decision is irrelevant and ignored by the network, at protocol level. It doesn't prevent anyone from running modified versions of Bitcoin (in fact, there are tons of those running as we speak). Nor does it prevent miners from mining invalid blocks.
> The validity of blocks is not some ethereal thing, and neither are Bitcoin rules written on a tablet by God.
They are, more or less. I think the last time a hard fork occurred was over 10 years ago for a small bug fix.
Like I was saying, your argument is basically that "everything is political". You are using "vote" in the most abstract and metaphorical sense. Yes, people "vote" for Bitcoin by using it. Just like I'm "voting" for HN by commenting here. That's just not how people typically think of "voting" and "politics". That "vote" has very little in common with the traditional "vote" that is counted and used to reach a decision.
As such and unlike your TV and browser, nodes have been used to influence policy, so I reject your "everything is political" straw man.
> nodes have been used to influence policy
Which policy are we referring to? There is no centralized authority here. Each participant has the autonomy to decide which blockchain to support. If a Bitcoin fork appeals to you, you're free to use it. The only semblance of "politics" that emerges is the debate over semantics, the "true Bitcoin," but this isn't dictated by the protocol. It evolves in a decentralized and organic manner, devoid of any formal political process or voting.
It bears very little resemblance with typical notions of voting and politics. It's only political in the broadest sense of the term, when starting from the axiom "anything involving humans is political". Which dilutes the significance of the term 'political' - a trend that I personally find very irritating, hence my initial snarky comment.
* BIP 141 version bits and BIP 148 as a voting mechanism: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawi... and https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawi...
* core developer votes: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
* posturing and maneuvering: https://cointelegraph.com/news/samourai-wallet-intends-to-ru...
> It evolves in a decentralized and organic manner, devoid of any formal political process or voting.
Just because the voting mechanisms are generally informal if we exclude the formal BIP voting process, that doesn't make them not voting mechanisms. I'll grant you that the politics of Bitcoin can be chaotic and hard to follow (this is intentional), but in times of crisis, the obfuscated leadership structure usually emerges from the darkness. Another example is what happened in the 2013 crisis, where light was cast on where the power in Bitcoin truly lied: https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-... . In this example, a couple devs took charge and had the miners abandon the longest chain.
If all these things are not politics to you, in that they are not specifically about governance, power, or voting, again we'll have to disagree. I am definitely not saying "everything human is political" so again we can drop that straw man.