|
Title: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 05, 2022, 06:46:35 PM Franky (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837) appears to create a lot of noise when it comes to threads regarding the Lightning Network[1][2][3]. The way this person talks is ill-intentioned and does not contribute anything to the discussion. Instead, he starts yelling and spreading lies and FUD[4][5] whenever we're talking about something that is not in his interest (such as the LN) and demands from the users to do as he says[6]. Anyone who's against his ideas is being cursed.
Countless of times his posts are getting deleted after been reported. Still, he has an account here and is allowed to act same like without any penalties. However, those who do want to constructively prove him wrong are being punished by having their posts deleted and thus discouraged to stop his future FUD. I address to the moderating team and request a ban, whether that's temporary or permanent. I also address to those who have been part in discussions with him and are annoyed by this uncontrolled abuse of the forum's free speech as he's infringing the rules: Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information? A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse. However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post). It's down to you to support my statement that what he does is trolling. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376568.msg58708356#msg58708356 [2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58877861#msg58877861 [3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58804168#msg58804168 [4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379599.msg58894664#msg58894664 [5] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58827879#msg58827879 [6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58878182#msg58878182 Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on January 05, 2022, 07:28:45 PM I don't know a whole lot about lightning nodes (though I did try to understand them a while back until my eyes glazed over), but that doesn't matter. Franky1 could be arguing about bitcoin itself, my mom, or COVID--I don't support this forum banning anyone based on their opinions of things unless they're absolutely trolling, which I don't think franky1 is. He might be wrong, his opinions might be loud and in-your-face, but the only thing I'd support is people shunning him if they don't like what he has to say.
The best way to do that is to use the ignore button. That way we can preserve freedom of speech and at the same time you don't have to see posts you know you're not going to want to see. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 05, 2022, 07:51:38 PM The best way to do that is to use the ignore button. This is the best way for you to avoid his shitposting. However, when a newbie makes a question and this beast comes spitting nonsensical FUDs that bring confusion and upheaval then the thing takes another dimension. Shall you leave this unchallenged?That way we can preserve freedom of speech And what happens when there are people who will abuse it? Who will manipulate the newcomers' opinions with their dogma? Propagandizing invades my speech. Let alone to be discouraged to clear up the confusion. Freedom of speech, yeah, but moderately. Besides, isn't he already getting his posts deleted constantly for trolling? What else do you need to ban someone by that accusation? Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: o_e_l_e_o on January 05, 2022, 08:02:59 PM In case you were unaware, franky1 is banned from Development and Technical Discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0. Also see this post by achow101 explaining the rationale behind this decision: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5193489.msg52782685#msg52782685. If you wish to actually discuss Lightning without being insulted, correcting the same lies dozens of times, and being taken wildly off topic, then do so there.
Note that there are far worse trolls than franky1 who are yet to be banned, so I doubt very much any action will be taken here. While I disagree completely with silencing someone because of their opinion, even if that opinion is completely and provably wrong, him derailing every thread he posts in to be about his personal vendetta against Lightning is getting tiring to say the least. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: _BlackStar on January 05, 2022, 08:07:40 PM I didn't know about user franky1 who was actually considered a troll before you created this thread. There are 3 negative tags [trusted] it receives before you start painting it down to 4 negative tags, but I really don't see if it's the effort it takes to remove any of the old users on this forum.
We always get advice from forum contributors that if you don't agree with someone's post then you can cite it for justification so as not to be misleading. If indeed the user continues to spread lies [trolling] which could cause serious problems in the forum, then the post and profile should be reported for review. So far there are 2 options I can think of regarding the user you are referring to, ignore the profile and posts or report more posts that you find misleading. I just checked how many posts the mod has removed for its profile, but 71 posts is too few if people actually report the post assomething wrong. Whatever it is, I'm just standing somewhere [neither confirming nor blaming]. This is really a case that needs to be looked at more than whether you agree or disagree about free speech. https://i.ibb.co/8ry8qH1/screenshoot.jpg (https://imgbb.com/) Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 05, 2022, 08:12:41 PM In case you were unaware, franky1 is banned from Development and Technical Discussion I'm aware, it's just that Lightning discussions can happen outside this sub-forum and he will still take the chance to dictate with his opinion. Someone may just mention it in the Bitcoin Discussion and he'll start bringing terror. I don't want to imagine what he's been writing to the Politics & Society board.Note that there are far worse trolls than franky1 who are yet to be banned But none so pathetic comes to my mind. Wanna share with me who's worse?This is really a case that needs to be looked at more than whether you agree or disagree about free speech. Again, it's not that I disagree with free speech. Pretty much the opposite: I'm trying to protect it here.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on January 05, 2022, 08:19:10 PM Shall you leave this unchallenged? Then challenge it instead of ignoring him. I'm strongly against banning people's speech just because it is in fact, or is considered to be, misinformation. The same drama is happening in the mainstream media, Youtube, and on social media platforms regarding COVID and I hate to say it: The type of speech that needs to be protected the most strongly is the type the majority of people disagree with. <snip> And what happens when there are people who will abuse it? Who will manipulate the newcomers' opinions with their dogma? Propagandizing invades my speech. Let alone to be discouraged to clear up the confusion. Freedom of speech, yeah, but moderately. Let people think for themselves, even if they're newbies being exposed to franky1's posts. You (or the forum) don't need to be the gatekeeper of the truth. I don't know why franky1's posts have been deleted or what that says about this situation. It'd be nice if a moderator chimed in here. Some of franky's posts I've seen in the past were well-written and informative (though not on the subject of the lightning network). Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: suchmoon on January 05, 2022, 08:32:58 PM I think red tag here is uncalled for. Expressing an opinion (no matter how wrong or "FUD" it may seem to someone else) shouldn't make a user "high risk".
Frankly (some minor pun intended) I would even hesitate to call franky1 a troll, he doesn't appear to be winding people up on purpose or at least that's not his primary purpose, it just happens as a result of his very headstrong opinions. Having said that, if he breaks the rules - report him by all means, but that's unlikely to result in a ban. He's not plagiarising or evading a ban or moving a thread somewhere. The real solution here would be to put him on ignore, or if you care enough - create a solid rebuttal thread with all the LN stuff etc and respond with a link to that thread when he derails a discussion, thus negating his potential negative impact on newbies etc. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 05, 2022, 09:21:27 PM Then challenge it instead of ignoring him. I do, but it's a lost game after all. He doesn't care about his writings, I do. He can't comprehend where he's wrong, I'm forced to highlight it. He doesn't syllogize his counter-proposals, I must provide valid arguments to make a point. Now add to these that he's mocking you on every single post and repeats the same things.Does it worth even having a conversation with him? No. Does his opinion affect some people? Can't say for sure, but having him banned from the Dev & Tech board shows me he's disapproved by some mod(s). Is this some sort of limitation of the forum's free speech that I'm unaware? Why not getting him rid of for good? Once and for all. Usually this is what happens to a user who's constantly reported for trolling. (And actually gets his posts deleted) Let people think for themselves, even if they're newbies being exposed to franky1's posts. You (or the forum) don't need to be the gatekeeper of the truth. This works oppositely too: Should you leave a malicious user cunningly propagandize against you? Isn't reporting also considered gatekeeping of the truth? All I'm saying is that he gets his posts deleted very often which discourages you to argue with him even if you know he's lying.create a solid rebuttal thread with all the LN stuff etc and respond with a link to that thread when he derails a discussion, thus negating his potential negative impact on newbies etc. That's maybe a smarter, less violent solution.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LoyceV on January 05, 2022, 09:41:13 PM However, when a newbie makes a question and this beast comes spitting nonsensical FUDs that bring confusion and upheaval then the thing takes another dimension. Shall you leave this unchallenged? Last time I saw it, the I added a heads up: False. In case you didn't know yet: franky1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837) doesn't like LN and has been spreading lies about it for a long time. It has earned him negative feedback (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=65837) from 3 highly knowledgeable users, and an "informal ban" from the tech boards (meaning his posts will be deleted on sight).False. TL;DR: you're wasting your time trying to explain things to him. Then challenge it instead of ignoring him. People have tried. The problem with trolls is that they feed on attention. If he posts the same "opinion" in many different topics, it's useless to challenge the same thing over and over again. I have franky1 on ignore, and there's always someone who's unaware of him being an anti-LN-troll who tries it again. And if enough people add him to their ignore list, eventually his posts will remain unchallenged and someone may believe it.Quote I'm strongly against banning people's speech just because it is in fact, or is considered to be, misinformation. Agreed.I think red tag here is uncalled for. Expressing an opinion (no matter how wrong or "FUD" it may seem to someone else) shouldn't make a user "high risk". Agreed, I think neutral would fit better. But clearly some people who know much more about Bitcoin than me think otherwise.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Timelord2067 on January 05, 2022, 09:51:24 PM I support intervention that prevents franky1 derailing Lightning Network threads with discussions that are either not relevant, or appear to have no basis in fact much-less reality.
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on January 05, 2022, 10:05:19 PM He doesn't syllogize his counter-proposals, I must provide valid arguments to make a point. Now add to these that he's mocking you on every single post and repeats the same things. I gave you 4 merits for using the word syllogize, not necessarily because I'm agreeing with you--I just want that noted. I appreciate the higher-level vocabulary, as I see so little of it used around here. Now as far as providing valid arguments to rebut franky1's posts, you've probably done all you can, and again I say this: Let the community use their brains to decide for themselves which argument makes the most sense. At this point if you continue to argue with franky1, all you're going to get are more posts that frustrate you. I'd suggest perhaps you take a deep breath, walk away from the keyboard for a while (or at least any thread having to do with the LN in which franky1 is posting), and regroup your thoughts. Does it worth even having a conversation with him? No. Does his opinion affect some people? Can't say for sure, but having him banned from the Dev & Tech board shows me he's disapproved by some mod(s). Yes, but the moderators should not be the truth gatekeepers either. Would you really want that? To me that sounds very authoritarian, sort of like Jen Psaki talking about the government's "suggestions" to Facebook as to what info about COVID reaches FB users' eyes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHSE0djIqVo).Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LeGaulois on January 05, 2022, 10:08:22 PM Despite I often disagree with @franky1 I believe he's a good poster, especially compared to the mass here
We shouldn't ban people for their opinion or lies. It's called the freedom of speech and democracy. We all have different opinions on several things. It's up to us to debate/argue and everyone has the right to talk. Not a majority deciding to ban people who disagree and give them negative feedback. How could we listen to the 2 parties to then decide if you censor a party? So everyone can say; hey I'm convinced you're lying so here is negative feedback. Following this logic is dumb. Everyone could neg rate everyone. If the person has been brainwashed, no matter, but it doesn't deserve a ban or a negative feedback Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 06, 2022, 12:16:20 AM Honestly not sure what the answer is at this stage. I'd like to see him get some support for whatever mental disorder he's got going on, but I doubt that's going to happen. The problem is, he knows where the limit is and he won't cross that line. But he'll be as much of a disruptive nuisance as he can up to that point. If you dare utter one of his trigger words, he's straight in with the same misleading nonsense stuck on repeat forever.
All we can do is challenge the dishonest stuff, even if it means doing the same infuriating dance for the rest of our time here. It gets tedious, but at least it keeps him somewhat in check. Eventually, once you've debunked all the lies, he just resorts to semantics and wordplay. And by that point no one is going to be convinced by what he's saying anyway. Keep up the good fight (and keep him out of Development and Technical Discussion). Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Poker Player on January 06, 2022, 05:03:41 AM Lol. I was very surprised to see this thread. I already said at some point that franky1 is a peculiar guy and I would like to see the face he has out of curiosity. I had him on ignore for a while and took him out just for the laughs. He does weird things like for example: he knows that Jet Cash has him on ignore and yet he doesn't stop replying to his posts. Sometimes two and three posts in a row in the same thread.
I don't support the ban request either. If he is already banned from the technical section I don't think there is a need to ban him from the whole forum. As for trust feedback, I see the only one that is strictly about some money is the one left by Carlton Banks, although if gmaxwell and achow101 left him negative feedback as well for non money issues I imagine he pissed them off quite a bit. By the way here is his last post on mining in Kazahstan: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380083.msg58913234#msg58913234 Edit: In case you were unaware, franky1 is banned from Development and Technical Discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0. How has he been able to publish this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5369431.msg58913799#msg58913799)there a few moments ago, then? Ah, OK I've just realized that there is no authomatic system, it is just that if he publishes there his posts will be moved or deleted. Good luck with that, then. Seeing what he does with Jet Cash, I wouldn't be surprised if he wrote a lot of posts there. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: PrimeNumber7 on January 06, 2022, 09:19:58 AM After a number of years of reading franky1's posts, I have come to the conclusion that he believes what he writes. I have posted previously that I do not agree with very much of what Franky says, and I probably would not agree with most of his interpretation of facts, however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith.
If you disagree with what franky1 is saying, I would encourage you to engage in a fact-based discussion with him to try to change his mind. In doing so, you should also be open to having your mind be changed, if a sufficient fact pattern were to emerge. As a result of the above, I would strongly oppose banning franky1. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 06, 2022, 09:40:00 AM Yes, but the moderators should not be the truth gatekeepers either. Would you really want that? To me that sounds very authoritarian If you ask me I prefer having some people who constantly throw into confusion outa here than leaving this place in its chaotic mercy. You aren't either absolutely totalitarian or disgustingly libertarian. History has shown exaggerations fail. As I said, everything in moderation. We're a forum after all.I'd like to see him get some support for whatever mental disorder he's got going on Yeah... About that :PAgain, die in a fire plz. Absolute waste of oxygen. As for this, I'm fully agreed: Eventually, once you've debunked all the lies, he just resorts to semantics and wordplay. And by that point no one is going to be convinced by what he's saying anyway. However, as I've underlined above, I'm more discouraged than encouraged to pay this man attention by starting all those wrangles. To reach the point where he starts resorting to semantics and wordplay, a page of wall-sized posts is required. By knowing there's a high chance for the discussion to be removed after all this mess, I don't even take the time.Ah, OK I've just realized that there is no authomatic system, it is just that if he publishes there his posts will be moved or deleted. From what I've noticed, he's banned in theory, but in practice he can disrupt a lot. The existence of the post you've linked proves he's not completely banned from that board, but instead confusing the users with the same shit.however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith. How do you interpret bad faith? I can characterize him an immature, inhibited scum the least. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: cryptoaddictchie on January 06, 2022, 09:40:59 AM I agree mostly with others. It doesn't mean you aren't concern with the community regarding a single user peculiar attitude towards posting. If he did violate some rules here likely no need to request for ban since he will get banned eventually. If he isn't then there is some sort of hope or light on what he speaks or discuss here in forum. I believe moderators are taking that also in consideration. Not familiar with the guy, but let the ban hammer done naturally.
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Upgrade00 on January 06, 2022, 10:00:30 AM Franky1 has been on the forum for a very long time, and from the early days I came across the profile, they were a pretty decent poster who gave mostly accurate information, although I believe they had a tag then for spreading wrong information on the forum.
I am not quite sure when their postings went downhill as I do not engage in any posts that they have posted in. However, judging from the links in the OP I would not still support a ban for the user. There may be some disagreements wand misinformation, but I would not call them net negative to the forum deserving of a ban. As have been said, challenge the misinformation or leave a neutral feedback on their account, or put it on your ignore list. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: The Sceptical Chymist on January 06, 2022, 10:07:53 AM If you ask me I prefer having some people who constantly throw into confusion outa here than leaving this place in its chaotic mercy. You aren't either absolutely totalitarian or disgustingly libertarian. I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being on the extreme end of those things, but wouldn't you agree that banning a member based on his opinions is just a wee bit authoritarian? Trolls are one thing, and that's a unique case where a member isn't voicing an unpopular opinion but rather posts inflammatory stuff just to spark up a flame war--like cryptohunter and his crew, and even in his case I didn't advocate for a ban. I made a thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5088527.msg48831851#msg48831851) asking the community to basically shun him, because if nobody replies to trolls, they tend to just go away.And also, I agree with this: however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith. That's the key here. If I thought franky1 was posting about LN topics simply to piss everyone off, I'd absolutely support a ban. But I've read his posts before, and I really think he's posting sincerely and is not trolling.Probably it looks like I've dug in my feet on this, but I've been very sensitive as of late about speech being censored. I linked to that video where the US government is trying to regulate what people write on Facebook, and I find that outrageous. This world seems like it's moving toward thought policing, and if you support free speech then you have to watch out when you start thinking about appealing to an authority in order to shut down someone else's speech. There are other options, which I and other members have suggested. I'd also add that Theymos probably wouldn't go for a ban on franky1, and it'd be nice if he popped in and shared his thoughts on this. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: dkbit98 on January 06, 2022, 10:27:15 AM Most of us know this member for trolling and posting negative comments but that is a part of forum, and I don't want bitcointalk to become eco chamber without any criticism.
I believe that franky already have some limitations on his account and I think that is enough for now, there is not a single valid reason to ban him, especially when I remember recent case when one moderator temp-banned Nutlidah and chase him away, probably forever. :P BlackHatCoiner, if you have some personal problem with franky than just click magical ignore button and his posts won't bother you ever again. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Lucius on January 06, 2022, 11:29:02 AM Without taking anyone's side in this case, I can only say that @franky1 has its own opinion and has the right to express it on the forum like any other member - to ban someone because he thinks differently from others makes no sense given the freedom of expression this forum allows. I also think that @ franky1 has more technical knowledge about Bitcoin than 95% of the users of this forum, and this forum can hardly afford to lose such members just because they have a different opinion than others.
I could list at least 10 users who do very bad things on this forum, who have a bunch of negative feedback and flags, and I haven't noticed any of them being banned for it - and if someone happens to be perma-baned for their opinion, I think this will be the beginning of the end of this forum. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: NotATether on January 06, 2022, 12:21:22 PM Most of us know this member for trolling and posting negative comments but that is a part of forum, and I don't want bitcointalk to become eco chamber without any criticism. Ditto. Let's not make this place more like kiwifarms guys. Now... If you see someone who constantly disagrees with what you are saying, the only thing possible is to ignore them (and preventing them from posting in certain boards apparently). You are unlikely to feel satisfied with the feeling of getting him banned, if his posts are already bothering you. It's human nature. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 06, 2022, 12:55:47 PM I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being on the extreme end of those things, but wouldn't you agree that banning a member based on his opinions is just a wee bit authoritarian? Not when those opinions are expressed in an enforcing manner, no. I give emphasis to the fact that he's been officially banned from the Dev & Tech board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0) and that he's the only person who has ever accomplished such thing. There's not a forum/community I've ever been on that does tolerate these people. And that's probably why he's on bitcointalk.Anyway, I'm not against freedom of expressing one's opinions, but it's much more complicated with this occasion. If only he just expressed his opinion... If you see someone who constantly disagrees with what you are saying, the only thing possible is to ignore them And that's probably what I'm going to do from now on.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Rath_ on January 06, 2022, 03:23:03 PM As one of the people who frequently argue with him, I think that we should leave him be. It is sometimes tiring to confront him. I keep him away from The Lightning Network FAQ (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5158920.msg51615708#msg51615708) thread as I don't want to see tens of pages of "whether or not Lightning is Bitcoin" discussion every few weeks there, but I try to reply to most of his arguments in other threads.
He does spread a lot of blatant lies like: it costs $3 to open a Lightning channel, Lightning is not Bitcoin and he has recently done something that I would call a trolling attempt but our related posts got deleted twice. And if enough people add him to their ignore list, eventually his posts will remain unchallenged and someone may believe it. That's pretty much why I am still answering his posts. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 03:42:57 PM ok this should be fun
lets start from the previous posers comments first He does spread a lot of blatant lies like: it costs $3 to open a Lightning channel, Lightning is not Bitcoin Rath used one example of 1 transaction(that was RBF enabled by the way) to persuade that transactions are 7cents.. yet the block in question of that example had an average transaction cost of $1.79 the average transaction fee for the last year has been over $2. and in the last 3 years has seen fee's of upto $60 he went extreme of saying an 7cent exageration.. but yet i did not go extreme by saying $60.. instead i said a fair value amount of ~$3.. which is shown in hard blockdata and real math of many examples.. i did not cherry pick extremes (by the way, enabling RBF discounts fees to lower amounts purposefully to delay a confirmation to allow someone to replace a transaction in pools mempool using a higher fee, without having the newer higher fee tx being too extreme to persuade pools to drop the first) so yea, rath used a bad example transaction to pick as his 'proof of cheap' especially when it does not compare to the average fee people do pay per transaction for the last 3years, or even 1 year, or even 1 month averages as for me saying the lightning network is not the bitcoin network.. its not. the N of LN pretty much explains its a different network. why are people having a problem with saying LN is a different network i know i know LN supporters dont like me undoing their hard work of their strange PR campaigns, where they try to sell LN as being bitcoin2.0.. but tough luck what they need to learn is they might have a better PR campaign if they actually explained the risks (for user awareness) explained the differences of why its not bitcoin network(so that they can advertise the niche need) after all. if LN was bitcoin network, then bitcoin network would have the features to do everything everyone needed and people would not need these other network "payment" systems LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.. if the PR bunnys of LN actually explained the truth, they would have a better PR campaign.. but instead THEY want to confuse people i do get it, i fully understand that a certain group of other network users want to tag themselves onto bitcoin fame to win instant trust.. but put it into this context: if faketoshi was to create an altnet that bridges to multiple coins, including btc. and faketoshi advertised his network as bitcoin2.0. i can guarantee you that the debates would begin debunking that branding/association with bitcoin Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: stompix on January 06, 2022, 03:49:08 PM I'm one of the guys who constantly argues with Franky1, he is one special piece of work, he will not accept he is wrong no matter what, he is as usual know it all, he knows everything better than everyone, you won't see him back down on stupid claims ever.
But that aside, banning anyone for his views and opinion on things, no matter how ridiculous wrong they are is simply a no! Banning members on that would turn this into a real cult where everyone would be afraid to voice any opinion that is not embraced by the majority. Just like everyone else he has the right to voice his opinion as long as it respects the forum rules, we are free to ignore or engage with him, any change in this would do more harm to the forum than franky1 would ever be able to. If you disagree with what franky1 is saying, I would encourage you to engage in a fact-based discussion with him to try to change his mind. Don't encourage poeple to engage in Augean tasks. Debunk his so-called facts, easy as pie, change his mind ::) EDIT: Oh crap, he's here, watch him managing to piss everyone who was actually defending him. Ordering moar popcorn, this is going to be good!!! Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 03:57:10 PM I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being on the extreme end of those things, but wouldn't you agree that banning a member based on his opinions is just a wee bit authoritarian? Not when those opinions are expressed in an enforcing manner, no.enforcing? im not the one trying to ban users. im not the one thats part of a group that done a mandatory fork im not the one telling people to abandon bitcoin and use another network. tell me again. what have i enforced? oh wait, i remember.. when i told you to take a step away from the computer, for 10 minutes, have a cup of coffee, put aside your personal bias and think about a topic from another prospective for the remaining 9minutes 30 seconds.. its not enforcing. its actually asking you to try something that causes no harm to yourself or anyone else. but just might give you an opportunity to have a rational thought outside of your personal grievance/bias/desires/personal goals/loyalties .... ok. lets start at the top this time as things only look 'derailed', out of context, off topic only after messages are deleted and posts are left without explanation/defence. (standard tactic of certain people) Franky (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837) appears to create a lot of noise when it comes to threads regarding the Lightning Network[1][2][3]. The way this person talks is ill-intentioned and does not contribute anything to the discussion. Instead, he starts yelling and spreading lies and FUD[4][5] whenever we're talking about something that is not in his interest (such as the LN) and demands from the users to do as he says[6]. Anyone who's against his ideas is being cursed. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376568.msg58708356#msg58708356 [2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58877861#msg58877861 [3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58804168#msg58804168 [4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379599.msg58894664#msg58894664 [5] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58827879#msg58827879 [6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58878182#msg58878182 1. rath was pretending that the 1500 actual pizza orders. but only 10% successful payments. was some how not what FOLD reported direct, but instead raths wrong opinion that thre were somehow only 150 pizza orders ever ordered. and presuming they all got successfully paid. whereby in his presumption 1350 fake payments that didnt succeed with no pizza order attached. (rath presumed there were 1350 random spam payment attempts not meant to succeed) sorry but that was not what FOLD reported 2&6. funnily enough a topic called "Re: is bitcoin scalability problem solve now?" was indeed about bitcoin scaling. and not advertising other networks.. yet.. Blackhat does not understand this fact, even when its in the title of said topic. me saying the topic is about bitcoin scaling.. is me saying what the topic is about. 3. the noise of using the 'piss/swimming pool water' analogy is in reply to LN users using a piss and swimming pool water analogy. if they dont like it they should not have started the analogy 4. already mentioned this in previous post. 5. i mention how many fails. rath admits to fails. but then says he cant explain why it failed. then he went on to assume failures for odd reasons. how is me saying he did 389 fails, and rath admitting he done 389 fails FUD? also using the point 5's link.. rath admits that his "payments" are not his payments but routes of others. which goes to prove point 4's debate about the number of payments do not mean the number of actual real world purchases of goods or services the node itself makes for itself. EG juices 44 'events' were not 44 payments juice done for himself to buy things. they were events of the network to get around a LN flaw. ... now lets pick another post to defend There's not a forum/community I've ever been on that does tolerate these people. And that's probably why he's on bitcointalk. Anyway, I'm not against freedom of expressing one's opinions, but it's much more complicated with this occasion. If only he just expressed his opinion... im on the bitcointalk forum... (wait for it.. drum roll.. 3.2.1 .. here goes nothing..) to talk about bitcoin i dont want to be advertised other networks as solutions to bitcoin. also. balackhats opinions are not of his own mind. he says the exact same things as doomad did. like a script yea dont want to see a group of people advertising their other network as bitcoin2.0, i dont want to see people being told to f**k off to other networks if they dont like how the other group wants bitcoin to change in their altnet favour. these are MY opinions. i am a bitcoiner. but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped. ..mega insanity loop.. done purely just to get people off the bitcoin network (doomad stated this insanity loop script, and blackhatcoiner is keeping the loop active by repeating it) its these insanity loops that show those altnet bunnies do not care about bitcoin. here is a game everyone can play.. it harms no one and causes no controversy. but is an interesting thought to realise. read the altnet bunnies posts. but.. in your mind change their username to "faketoshi" and read it again. it will give a whole new prospective to the context of their adverts. it a very simple experiment. .. if the resentment is about "walls of text".. the forum rules do not like splitting messages over multiple posts (yea i saw that game 5 years ago, trying to force me to break up my context into different posts to force me to break the rules.. ha, nice try. no dice, game over, try another game) if the resentment is about me calling out a group of chums, fangirls, bunnies who work as a collective mind patting each other on the back for circling their closed minded PR campaign of another network between themselves.. well the merit cycling clubs and backscratching, is obvious https://loyce.club/other/Backscratchers.html Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LoyceV on January 06, 2022, 06:08:04 PM After a number of years of reading franky1's posts, I have come to the conclusion that he believes what he writes. I have posted previously that I do not agree with very much of what Franky says, and I probably would not agree with most of his interpretation of facts, however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith. That sounds great, but was attempted in many topics already. If franky1 would keep his crusade in just one topic, I don't think anyone would complain about it.If you disagree with what franky1 is saying, I would encourage you to engage in a fact-based discussion with him to try to change his mind. In doing so, you should also be open to having your mind be changed, if a sufficient fact pattern were to emerge. I'm tempted to give this one more try. There's not a forum/community I've ever been on that does tolerate these people. But that's something to cherish, not something to change! There are more than enough overly censored forums out there, and there's only one that I know of that actually allows people to express their opinion.LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins. I can live with this :)@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? I expect it will be "you vs a couple of other users", but from what I've seen, you can handle yourself. I would like to discuss your points on LN that I've seen in far too many different topics, and it would be nice if we can reach consensus on at least part of the discussion. I don't think Meta is the right place to discuss the details of LN. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 06:29:54 PM LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins. I can live with this :)@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? I expect it will be "you vs a couple of other users", but from what I've seen, you can handle yourself. I would like to discuss your points on LN that I've seen in far too many different topics, and it would be nice if we can reach consensus on at least part of the discussion. I don't think Meta is the right place to discuss the details of LN. i can engage. and out of respect i will even take my own advice and step back from the computer between posts and take some breathing time between posts, and avoid (as i see other do)just hitting reply to rage reply. if others can do the same. and answer without shining their bias/advertising PR stance of utopia, and respond rationally and thinking outside their small box. then great it could actually lead to some proper dialogue. .. as for my crusade my crusade only flows into other topic when: other topics about BITCOIN scaling fill up with altnet advertising other topics depict altnets as BITCOIN2.0 other topics 'sell' the utopian fantasy of security and success of an altnet when a bitcoin scaling discussion gets told not to scale bitcoin when altnet supporters say bitcoiners should f**k off if they dont like the scaling delays,stalls, hindrances when altnet supporters say bitcoin should not be used for X and Y type of uses. but their altnet is what everyone should use by the way, i also called out faketoshi, his BSV pretending to be bitcoin and his disciples when they do their altnet adverts crusades the same way LN'ers have. yet there was no controversy when the faketoshi disciples were called out.. (strange but true) Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 06, 2022, 06:55:18 PM the average transaction fee for the last year has been over $2. and in the last 3 years has seen fee's of upto $60 Yes, for several days. But, everyday in average it's not more than a few cents for regular transactions. So what's your point? In 2016 there were transactions with fees up to $1000 (https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/729800710280335361). I agree that it's more than $0.07 usually, but not a lot more.the N of LN pretty much explains its a different network. Congratulations Sherlock, but we never told you that Lightning and Bitcoin were of the same network. We were telling you that it's the same currency, but the millisat subunit had blinded you. Find me one post where I have told you that the Lightning Network is part of the Bitcoin Network. It's a layer, build on top of the existing network. It's a completely different network that works on an already existent network.im not the one trying to ban users. You're banning my time when I waste it trying to clear up your mess.1. rath was pretending [...] Rath consecutively pretends according to your sayings. According to you, he's a lying bastard who wants to harm the Bitcoin environment by working on a scummy project. Sorry, but you're the only person who sees things like that. I'm not going to talk about Rath's pizza for one more time. People can read the discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376568.msg58708356#msg58708356) and judge by themselves if he's indeed a storyteller. 2&6. funnily enough a topic called "Re: is bitcoin scalability problem solve now?" was indeed about bitcoin scaling. and not advertising other networks You don't get to decide what's off-topic and what's not. If you think one's post is off-topic report it. However, when a user talks about the scalability problem it's reasonable enough to see Lightning posts. You've stuck on the network thing. Move on.Blackhat does not understand this fact, even when its in the title of said topic. So within your limits, the only thing that we should discuss as a solution there would be to increase the block size. Or shouldn't we as it's officially your punchline?also. balackhats opinions are not of his own mind. he says the exact same things as doomad did. like a script 'Cause I decided to shut your mouth in discussions where you kept talking about the same things. but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers And why would you? You feel like you're shutting us up with your heavily valid and reliable arguments. People usually act like this only when they feel really annoyed. the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped. Not that I understand the entire sentence, but you're probably talking about the awful way we're forcing our ideas again? Yeah, hey: We outnumber you. These ideas are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin envisioners.Also, stop talking about our Lightning disagreements in here. It's off-topic, something that I've been blamed by you. If you want to continue this further create a thread in the Bitcoin Discussion and humiliate me. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 06, 2022, 06:56:59 PM im not the one trying to ban users. I don't think you should be banned from the forum as a whole. But I am curious. Does the fact that some people would prefer to see you banned give you any pause for thought about how you conduct yourself? If there were a topic debating my continued future here, I'd be thinking "Shit, I didn't realise I was pissing people off that much. I'm going to rethink my behaviour". Does any such thought along those lines even register in your brain? im not the one thats part of a group that done a mandatory fork But you are. There's no such thing as a "mandatory fork" in Bitcoin. The code you run is entirely up to you in an open-source environment. You either opt to follow consensus or you don't. You are here by choice. If you are following consensus, then you literally are "part of the group". im not the one telling people to abandon bitcoin and use another network. Then what should we be telling people who ask for impossible things? Say someone wanted to introduce something incompatible like Proof-of-Stake in Bitcoin, are you going to tell them they can have that when they clearly can't? No. You'd tell them they can only have that if a significant number of those securing the network approve, which is highly unlikely. And if they can't abide by that response, you'd then tell them they can use another network which supports that incompatible feature. Because that's how it works. You know just as well as anyone else does that Bitcoin cannot feasibly incorporate every last whim or fantasy of all people. You know that's how it is, yet you exhibit resentment every single time someone reminds you of this fundamental fact when you're the one asking for something incompatible. To reiterate, you want things which other users do not want. And those users outnumber you. Deny it all you like. Engage in whatever semantics you like to try and worm your way around the fact. Derail every topic humanly possible (or better yet, don't). It doesn't change a thing. If you want something incompatible (and you do) there are other projects which cater to that. No one is saying you have to leave, but it would behoove you to use another network if you want incompatible things. But you don't have a sensible response to any of that, so you'll just keep whining that I'm "telling people to leave". Despite the fact that it's the only accurate and technically correct response to your continued asininity. Talk about playing the martyr. these are MY opinions. i am a bitcoiner. but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped. ..mega insanity loop.. done purely just to get people off the bitcoin network (doomad stated this insanity loop script, and blackhatcoiner is keeping the loop active by repeating it) its these insanity loops that show those altnet bunnies do not care about bitcoin. I would take the stance that a "bitcoiner" would recognise when their own personal desires do not mesh with those of the wider community and respect their wishes. I don't believe you're capable of that. Your motives are entirely selfish and you would rather other people didn't have the option to build or use anything you don't approve of. That's not how collaborative projects work. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LoyceV on January 06, 2022, 07:27:30 PM @franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? i can engage.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 06, 2022, 07:30:23 PM im not the one trying to ban users. I don't think you should be banned from the forum as a whole. But I am curious. Does the fact that some people would prefer to see you banned give you any pause for thought about how you conduct yourself? if faketoshi and his altnetBSV desciples wanted me banned for calling them out. would i think im the problem. no. .. same applies to other altnet bunnies, chums If there were a topic debating my continued future here, I'd be thinking "Shit, I didn't realise I was pissing people off that much. I'm going to rethink my behaviour". Does any such thought along those lines even register in your brain? when out of millions of registered users, its only the same dozen altnet bunnies being angry.. i think maybe im just poking the correct bear cave. im not the one thats part of a group that done a mandatory fork But you are. There's no such thing as a "mandatory fork" in Bitcoin. forks happen without the need for every node user to form consensus. this is done by rejecting old style blocks to only accept new block formats. thus the only blocks that propagate are the new style. this causes old nodes still listening to old blocks to get forked off.. you might want to check devs own wording of bip148 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times my favoured buzzword is not madatory. my favoured word is segregation. apartheid. .. though segregation causes some confusion so i used mandated on purpose as its the DEVs chosen words anyway, i know yet again even after reminding you after 20 times in the last 4 years.. the june/july 2017 drama about the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148 that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks i even sent you the pretty picture many times https://preview.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=bbfe1af4a5c06877dfda907081d43737191d43ce this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code thus the blockchain data, node software data and github references does not lie. its all available to read as for outnumbering? To reiterate, you want things which other users do not want. And those users outnumber you. Deny it all you like. there are literally thousands of topics about bitcoin scaling. none of which i created, which have posts by more then thousands of different users.. yet LN (advertised as the solution) only has a couple dozen topics created by the same group of people. oh, and that pretty picture above.. (red line)shows that only <45% of miners wanted segwit from nov 16 to jun 17.. (blue line) shows a compromise agreement to have a 2mb base block and 2mb weight, as an appeasement to the community. and look. boom loads got onboard.. WITHIN DAYS(literal vertical line straight up) for the offer of a bitcoin scaling + segwit compromise but as you can see. once threshold was reached. the first(1mb base 3mb variant(redline)) got activated and the compromise got dropped meaning fake vote using fake policy to not give what the compromised promise had to offer, but instead bait and switch to get a version that was only getting 45% max community agreement the only reason you only see most of the people you read discuss LN is because of cabin fever. when a group of people are locked in a cabin. all they see is the people in the cabin. all they talk about is the things they have in common. it ends up being stockholm syndrome. favouring those you are locked up with because its all you know and see EG you only see me enter your closed cabin with no fear of debunking you guys. so you wrongly think i am the only one. dont worry, your not alone though.. faketoshi has a cabin just like yours. he decorates it the same too Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 06, 2022, 09:01:29 PM Does the fact that some people would prefer to see you banned give you any pause for thought about how you conduct yourself? if faketoshi and his altnetBSV desciples wanted me banned for calling them out. would i think im the problem. no. So no hope for betterment, then. I suppose that was to be expected. There's no such thing as a "mandatory fork" in Bitcoin. forks happen without the need for every node user to form consensus. this is done by rejecting old style blocks to only accept new block formats. thus the only blocks that propagate are the new style. this causes old nodes still listening to old blocks to get forked off.. Translation: The stronger proposal defeated the weaker one. If "old style blocks" were what the majority wanted, then the miners wouldn't be producing any "new style blocks" and the nodes wouldn't be propagating them. you might want to check devs own wording of bip148 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times my favoured buzzword is not madatory. my favoured word is segregation. apartheid. .. though segregation causes some confusion so i used mandated on purpose as its the DEVs chosen words Use whatever words you want. The fact is you still have a choice. You have made the choice to stay, because you recognise the benefits of Bitcoin's security and network effects. If you really felt that strongly about your purported moral high ground, you wouldn't have stuck around. But you know in order to stand by your beliefs, you would have to sacrifice the security and the network effects we offer you. Your alternative would be to form a weaker network. So instead, you willingly continue to support the fork you claim you hate and you can keep reaping the benefits. You complain about it, but you stay. I'd say that sounds an awful lot like a hypocrite. anyway, i know yet again even after reminding you after 20 times in the last 4 years.. the june/july 2017 drama about the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148 that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks i even sent you the pretty picture many times this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code thus the blockchain data, node software data and github references does not lie. its all available to read And it all shows that consensus was reached for BIP91. And yeah, the numbers don't lie. You can argue about how it happened for the rest of forever, and I'm sure you will, but it's done now. as for outnumbering? To reiterate, you want things which other users do not want. And those users outnumber you. Deny it all you like. there are literally thousands of topics about bitcoin scaling. none of which i created, which have posts by more then thousands of different users.. yet LN (advertised as the solution) only has a couple dozen topics created by the same group of people. You're deflecting from the real issue when you talk about topics. Topics aren't securing the network. Words are hollow. Actions are what matter. Your problem is that people are running code you don't approve of. Those are the people that outnumber you. You're still pissing into the wind. But you're blaming me for the fact that you're covered in your own piss. I'm sure you believe that's justified in your head, though. ::) But go ahead and have the last word. Unwatching this topic now. I know how it's going to go. Just like every other topic you're involved in. After a while everyone realises you've failed to overcome any of the arguments presented against you and you're just making noise for the sake of not conceding defeat. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 01:09:38 AM Translation: The stronger proposal defeated the weaker one. did you even read your own referenced bip91If "old style blocks" were what the majority wanted, then the miners wouldn't be producing any "new style blocks" and the nodes wouldn't be propagating them. Quote This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000) While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected. you had 4 years to look at the details of the block data and bips. and yet you still get it wrong the first proposal (1mb base 3mb weight) envisioned november 2016, still had under 45% eagerness in june 2017. devs were getting frustrated that their new feature wont activate as-is the compromise: the second proposal (2mb base 2mb weight) envisioned march 2017, announced june 2017 garnered 90% in days because it "promised" bitcoin block scaling and segwit as a side node (however the second proposal was a bait and switch to get first proposal to activate.) as for pretending that if miners didnt want first proposal they just wont make blocks with the first proposal flag.. thats what they did from nov16 to jun17. no harm no foul.. no activation due to lack of desire (this humiliated the devs that thought it would activate by december 2016) what you find is the second proposal that 'promised' base block scaling+segwit. needed them to change to the new format after the second proposal threshold else the merchants like exchanges(nya party) would reject the old blocks(bip91). making none of the exchanges see the old blocks, meaning miners making old blocks cant spend rewards.. so they were forced to do new blocks as a condition of proposal 2, else end up not on the network/not receiving spendable rewards however once the new blocks got 100% threshold. due to the old block kill off.. ..proposal 1 kicked in and proposal2 was forgotten and not activated. its funny how you spend many years jumping into this topic about the segwit activation.. yet you have never once referenced any blockchain data or bips or code.. correctly, but i have.. seems your the one that cant succeed in the debate.. but knowing you will ignore what has been said and come back in a few months pretending that mandatory was never a thing again and need to be disproved once again. and then cry again that you got yet again disproven and argue how i never shut up about it.. sorry but if you want to tell people your version.. i will correct you. no matter how many times you forget and then re-assert your version your memory may forget and your hopes that others forget. just so you can then pretend it never happened.. ..but the blockdata remains solid and clear of the flags used and the dates used. goodluck disproving the blockchains version of events. it never forgets. nor can it be edited Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: pooya87 on January 07, 2022, 07:20:16 AM forks happen without the need for every node user to form consensus. this is done by rejecting old style blocks to only accept new block formats. thus the only blocks that propagate are the new style. this causes old nodes still listening to old blocks to get forked off.. You are telling only part of the truth that suits your agenda.Nodes accept all blocks that are valid before the set target and check how many of those block are signalling for the change. If the total number is bigger than an agreed percentage (usually more than 95% which is the case with SegWit) they consider the change locked-in and if the remaining minuscule minority (ie. 5%) goes against the change their block will be rejected. If they see that the threshold is not reached (eg. 94% signalling) they will go ahead as before without enforcing the change and reject any block that goes ahead with the fork. Quote you might want to check devs own wording of bip148 BIP-148 was never used to activate anything and I personally consider it an attack against bitcoin.https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times You bringing up here as an argument is another reason why people consider your posts FUD. Quote the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148 This is a lie.Quote that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks You keep repeating the same lie but "disregarding a block" means chain split. Show us the chain split that happened in 2017 with the blocks that weren't signalling and were disregarded? You can't because there was no such thing.Quote i even sent you the pretty picture many times And it contradicts what you said 2 sentences above about miners activating BIP148 which they are clearly signalling something else!https://preview.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=bbfe1af4a5c06877dfda907081d43737191d43ce this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code Quote and look. boom loads got onboard.. WITHIN DAYS(literal vertical line straight up) If you bother to look at any other fork, they look pretty much similar. From BIP16 (P2SH) to BIP340-3412 (Taproot) they activated in more or less a similar way where miners wait until last moment and suddenly they all signal within days to get the 95% threshold (or the high threshold required for that fork) and remain up for the next 2 weeks.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Pmalek on January 07, 2022, 09:06:52 AM I find franky very irritating and he reminds me of cryptohunter and those who came after him that were obviously not his alts. Walls of text that I am not interested in reading to tell you the truth. But this community is different from anything else I know, and that also entails putting up with someone like franky. I even remember meriting one or two of his posts in the past because I thought they were good. But that was before he became such a source of annoyance.
I do understand why OP would want to see him get banned, but I don't want that to happen because the majority doesn't agree with his views. With so many of his posts deleted, he will achieve what OP wants on his own sooner or later. I doubt the mods patience is unlimited. Spam and trolling does get you banned. It's frustrating taking the time to reply to this person only to see your posts get deleted because franky's got deleted and so did your quotes. Instead of quoting him, just use @franky1 and say what you want to say. I don't think that will get deleted. I am not sure what his goal is. Whatever it is, it's not working. Those who want to use LN should just do it despite what franky says. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: PrimeNumber7 on January 07, 2022, 09:48:22 AM And also, I agree with this: Right. franky1, from what I can tell, is an OG bitcoiner. I think he probably wants to see bitcoin succeed. however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith. That's the key here. If I thought franky1 was posting about LN topics simply to piss everyone off, I'd absolutely support a ban. But I've read his posts before, and I really think he's posting sincerely and is not trolling.After a number of years of reading franky1's posts, I have come to the conclusion that he believes what he writes. I have posted previously that I do not agree with very much of what Franky says, and I probably would not agree with most of his interpretation of facts, however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith. That sounds great, but was attempted in many topics already. If franky1 would keep his crusade in just one topic, I don't think anyone would complain about it.If you disagree with what franky1 is saying, I would encourage you to engage in a fact-based discussion with him to try to change his mind. In doing so, you should also be open to having your mind be changed, if a sufficient fact pattern were to emerge. People disagreeing with you is a part of life. The fact that franky1 disagrees with you, is not a microaggression. You can try to change his mind if you wish. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 10:06:32 AM Walls of text that I am not interested in reading to tell you the truth. With so many of his posts deleted, he will achieve what OP wants on his own sooner or later. I doubt the mods patience is unlimited. Spam and trolling does get you banned. what you might find interesting. is the majority of my deleted messages are not due to bans/trolling . but due to the fact that i have tried separating my posts into separate talking points. but forum rules dont like separate posts, they prefer walls of text, and so merge posts together. to avoid having notifications of 'merged posts' i do more frequently just 'wall of text' to avoid such annoyances.. but to clarify. this forum prefers walls of texts. rather than separate posts per point being made. my 'deleted message' stats are actually more proof of wanting to separate my talking points for clear reading, but the forum wanting to 'wall of text' just today alone i earned 3 more "deleted messages" because the forum mods decided to merge 4 posts into 1 wall of text https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58920210#msg58920210. so dont say i didnt try Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 07, 2022, 11:19:31 AM I doubt the mods patience is unlimited. It turns out it is. They keep deleting his posts years now, but he hasn't be banned (even temporarily) for once. Instead of quoting him, just use @franky1 and say what you want to say. Mods aren't robots. They can understand if my post is part of a discussion that has now ended. I don't have to quote/mention him. Just replying to a post that doesn't exist anymore is enough to get mine deleted as well.Right. franky1, from what I can tell, is an OG bitcoiner. I think he probably wants to see bitcoin succeed. But, really, what does that mean? Alright, so we both have a common goal. However, each want it to succeed in another way. I personally see it succeeding as long as there's consensus for something whether that's big blocks or second layers. Franky disrespects that. He wants us to do as he says. He can't comprehend that what has distinguished Bitcoin is this significant detail. what you might find interesting. is the majority of my deleted messages are not due to bans/trolling . but due to the fact that i have tried separating my posts into separate talking points. We all knows that's a lie. Yeah, they delete the individually made posts, but merge their content into one, so nothing is removed from your text. If you want to make another point don't double-post. Use the horizontal rule instead.There have been many of your posts deleted due to trolling. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: PrimeNumber7 on January 07, 2022, 11:37:42 AM Right. franky1, from what I can tell, is an OG bitcoiner. I think he probably wants to see bitcoin succeed. But, really, what does that mean? Alright, so we both have a common goal. However, each want it to succeed in another way. I personally see it succeeding as long as there's consensus for something whether that's big blocks or second layers. Franky disrespects that. He wants us to do as he says. He can't comprehend that what has distinguished Bitcoin is this significant detail. I think franky1 has his own way of thinking about how to approach problems. This is likely different than many other people's ways to approach problems. I think it is franky1's goal to change people's minds via his posts. I cannot say that franky1 changed my mind, but I can say that I thought about things I might not have necessarily thought about had I not read his posts. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: o_e_l_e_o on January 07, 2022, 12:10:21 PM I've already made it clear that I don't support a ban, but hats off to franky1 here for making factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning in a thread complaining about his factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning.
*Chef's kiss emoji* Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: suchmoon on January 07, 2022, 12:19:37 PM what you might find interesting. is the majority of my deleted messages are not due to bans/trolling . but due to the fact that i have tried separating my posts into separate talking points. We all knows that's a lie. Yeah, they delete the individually made posts, but merge their content into one, so nothing is removed from your text. If you want to make another point don't double-post. Use the horizontal rule instead.It's not a lie. He does get a lot of posts merged by mods and those count as multiple deleted posts. It's also quite possible that if you report franky1's post for trolling and your report is marked as "good", his post was deleted for some other reason. I've already made it clear that I don't support a ban, but hats off to franky1 here for making factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning in a thread complaining about his factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning. *Chef's kiss emoji* Let's be fair, half of this merit (no pun intended) should go to the people feeding the alleged troll. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 07, 2022, 12:34:37 PM For second layers, a consensus is not needed Exactly! That's why we, referring to off-chain supporters, realize how things work and try to improve the system without having to enforce anybody to change the rules they follow. The scalability problem is rather political than technical. It requires a smart solution that doesn't intensifies our political differences. It's not a lie. Then it's the half truth. He gets his posts merged as I've said, but we can't consider those deleted... The content of those posts still exists. I was referring to those that have been removed for good.Let's be fair, half of this merit (no pun intended) should go to the people feeding the alleged troll. You mean trying to clear up the reckless balderdash of the alleged troll? Yeah. Someone has to fight misinformation, apparently.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: suchmoon on January 07, 2022, 12:59:18 PM Then it's the half truth. He gets his posts merged as I've said, but we can't consider those deleted... The content of those posts still exists. I was referring to those that have been removed for good. franky1 was responding to a post saying that the large number of deleted posts will get him banned because of "spam and trolling". He explained that most of his deleted posts are not "spam and trolling" but merged multiposts. I think that's a fairly reasonable response and has factual basis. Let's be fair, half of this merit (no pun intended) should go to the people feeding the alleged troll. You mean trying to clear up the reckless balderdash of the alleged troll? Yeah. Someone has to fight misinformation, apparently.You can't have it both ways. If you really honestly think franky1 is a troll, the best way to defeat him is to not engage him. If you want to argue with him, that's fine, but you gotta take some responsibility for the ensuing chaos. This is even more jarring in a thread like this where LN discussion should be off topic. Trust me, I've fed many a troll over the years. Never led to anything positive. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 04:17:31 PM It's not a lie. Then it's the half truth. He gets his posts merged as I've said, but we can't consider those deleted... The content of those posts still exists. I was referring to those that have been removed for good.the stats noted in a earlier post of my deleted messages.. do not refer to a word count (your suggestion of message contents not removed).. they refer to posts deleted. POST count.. not word count when i make 4 posts in a topic and 3 get merged into the first. it counts as 3 deleted posts.. it does not count as 0 posts deleted and 0+- word count changes (your silly thinking) you might want to check devs own wording of bip148 BIP-148 was never used to activate anything and I personally consider it an attack against bitcoin.https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times You bringing up here as an argument is another reason why people consider your posts FUD. Quote the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148 This is a lie.Quote that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks You keep repeating the same lie but "disregarding a block" means chain split. Show us the chain split that happened in 2017 with the blocks that weren't signalling and were disregarded? You can't because there was no such thing.the blue line is the NYA(148) people agreed to the NYA meaning the blueline(148) reached its threshold and activated. part of 148 is to ignore old blocks on august 1st. and guess what happened on august first BCH this split, by old nodes seeing the old blocks and new nodes not.. meant that the new nodes seen only 100% blocks signalling for segwit(91) redline, whilst old nodes forked to BCH wait.. let me check does the bch blockchain exist.. pooya thinks it doesnt.. so i must be wrong... .. ... ok im right BCH does exist. so pooya is wrong.. ahh that was easy if you want to pretend there was no chain split.. then you are ignoring the existence of BCH if you want to ignore that 148 and 91 happened then you are ignoring all blockdata of the 2017 time period that contains the mentioned flags in those bips. so instead of shouting a narrative of a story you were told by a buddy.. try using blockdata and also actual bips.. .. dont deviate by showing other bips for other events. dont rationalise your story with other events social lack of controversy. you may not like me. but you cant honestly be saying that the blockchains immutable ledger is lying .. it was a nice try on your part to try and defends your buddies versions of stories they also heard. fables usually pass around like campfire stories. but try to stick to hard data and reference-able code.. rather than stories. seems out of all those that talk of versions of events in 2017. i am the only one that has shown the graphs that reference the block flags and referenced the split causing BCH and the bips used to do it.. everyone else has just been screaming "wrong coz misinforming troll" i do find it funny how you think there was no split in august 2017.. .. now that is misinformation.. seems your story telling made a whole altcoin disappear.. oh wait, its still there your entitled to think im a toll. but atleast do the research now and again, it might teach you something that counters the buddy narrative [moderator's note: consecutive posts merged] Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: NeuroticFish on January 07, 2022, 04:48:09 PM the blue line is the NYA(148) people agreed to the NYA meaning the blueline(148) reached its threshold and activated. part of 148 is to ignore old blocks on august 1st. and guess what happened on august first BCH if you want to pretend there was no chain split.. then you are ignoring the existance of BCH if you want to ignore that 148 and 91 happened then you are ignoring all blockdata of the 2017 time period that contains the mentioned flags in those bips. so instead of shouting a narrative of a story you were told by a buddy.. try using blockdata and also actual bips.. You ask to discuss about the block data. Does Bitcoin blockchain "know" about BCH splitting off? I don't think so. According to bitcoin's blockchain BCH doesn't exist. That BIP activation and the split is recorded probably on BCH chain, which doesn't matter in this discussion, since we talk about bitcoin, not altcoins. So, I may be wrong, since I don't know the things that good, but imho you are also getting into the discussion things that should not be there. It's all about how one looks at the things. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 07, 2022, 04:51:45 PM You ask to discuss about the block data. Does Bitcoin blockchain "know" about BCH splitting off? I don't think so. According to bitcoin's blockchain BCH doesn't exist. That BIP activation and the split is recorded probably on BCH chain, which doesn't matter in this discussion, since we talk about bitcoin, not altcoins. So, I may be wrong, since I don't know the things that good, but imho you are also getting into the discussion things that should not be there. It's all about how one looks at the things. the bitcoin code and the bips refer to a block number where a split would happen to start the segwit activation process. and guess what magic blockheight BCH started at... .. ill leave you to answer that when you have a lightbulb moment. you can also check bitcoins blockchain for the flag day. by looking at the flags in the header and seeing when certain flags reached their needed amount. this is available in bitcoins block data. for those that dont want to read hard data, i also supplied a nice lil graph that shows the flags in image form, for nice simple viewing.. shame the fable story tellers that can only shout "wrong because troll" cant show same block data or put it into a nice graph for easy reading.. so atleast dont blame me for not trying. but maybe consider the other side hasnt tried, but has cried note: by the way when i get something wrong i can admit it. it has been 4 years. and memory is what memory is. so i checked if i was right or wrong about the 148+91 bips.. as some have been demanding i retract my statement because their opinion is that 148+91 were not used. so after checking. they indeed were used. but here is my admission. it was bip91+148 not bip148+91 i simply got them in the wrong order. 91 succeeded at block 477120 (23rd july) 148 succeeded at block 478,484 (aug1st) which because of the bait switch of demanding pools flag for segwit. near 99% of pools were making new flag blocks, and BCH didnt get its first(old) block that caused the split until 478558(august 1st) they were not seeing any old flag blocks for 74 blocks what you also might find relevant and factual. is why would pools fear bip91+148. well they both indicate mandatory rejecting of old blocks. why would they fear this if most users were not using these softwares that incorporated the bips. because the NYA nodes(merchants, exchanges (https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77)) WERE using software that would reject pools old blocks. this software was the UASF. pools didn't need all users to run new software to activate a fork. all it needed was the commercial services that allow pools to spend rewards with to use software that will reject blocks that dont fit the commercial services designated rules. other users didnt need to upgrade due to "backward compatibility" of new stuff. anyway.. to boil the events down.. the blue line in the graph on previous page was bip91(NYA) and the red line was the segwit to anyone that still does not want to believe that 148 and 91 were used.. may i refer them to some more prominent bitcoiners they might believe ill refer you to theymos https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2017191.0 ill refer you to sipa https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/56994 so if you want to debate that 91+148 were never used.. then argue with them first though it seems theymos has been maybe a slight instigator in some peoples belief that a chain split didnt happen.. even though bch did happen and is active today as proof. but hey, at least im linking bips, block numbers and references to other notable members that say that bip91+148 were used.. now lets see the ignorant 'it didnt happen' show their proofs that forks didnt happen and bips were not used.. or lets see them shout and scream and cry "wrong because troll" have a good day. goodluck Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: pooya87 on January 08, 2022, 06:09:29 AM You can't have it both ways. If you really honestly think franky1 is a troll, the best way to defeat him is to not engage him. If you want to argue with him, that's fine, but you gotta take some responsibility for the ensuing chaos. This is even more jarring in a thread like this where LN discussion should be off topic. You can and should ignore trolls but you can't and shouldn't ignore misinformation because it is misleading anyone who would come upon said posts.Trust me, I've fed many a troll over the years. Never led to anything positive. For example misinformation is the only reason why even today there are people who think signatures in a SegWit transaction are "removed" from the blockchain! Or for more than a year people were scared of using the new SegWit addresses since someone kept repeating a buzzword called "anyone-can-spend". Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 08, 2022, 11:53:59 AM For example misinformation is the only reason why even today there are people who think signatures in a SegWit transaction are "removed" from the blockchain! Or for more than a year people were scared of using the new SegWit addresses since someone kept repeating a buzzword called "anyone-can-spend". 1. nodes not supporting segwit do get trimmed off blocks without the weight. its why a block has to have separate txid for the different formats, because otherwise a block validation would glitch/reject for the older nodes, also those older nodes not supporting segwit, cant then be used as IBD seeders for other peers as their stripped blocks wont 'compute' if given to a segwit node. yep segwit nodes which connect to non segwit node, strip a block to pass it to a non-segwit node.(the backward compatibility premiss) but a non segwit node cant then relay that block to a segwit node as its been stripped core devs pretend 'its all good' your still part of the network' yet your not, you become less part of the relay/propagation network. so thats why that was mentioned to make people aware they are less involved in the relay/propagation/IBD support of other peers. https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/91648 - he wrote segwit code in bitgo so i think you should respect his knowledge same goes for pruning. if you prune your nodes blockchain. you dont have the blocks to then provide IBD support to other peers. making you less part of the decentralised security backbone of the network. and treated as a leacher not a seeder. again ifnorming people of how features affect their involvement in the network protocol is actually a good thing to advise, not something that should be remained hidden and swept under the carpet like its meaningless. 2. before august 2017 it was said that segwit was soft and that it didnt cause a fork and that its safe to use, the debate explained that people cant just use segwit softly until its actually activated and majority support it via hardfork.. the end result is that devs decided to not include the key creation/wallet payment code of segwit until after activation, rather than include it before activation with the other segwit code to prepare for segwit.. because they acknowledged the anyonecanspend problem would cause a problem if anyone tried to make a segwit transaction before activation via a hard fork. Quote https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#upgrading-1 The wallet provided with Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 will continue to only generate non-segwit P2PKH addresses for receiving payment by default. Later releases are expected to allow users to choose to receive payments to segwit addresses. oh and please note. im the only one thats backing up my opinions by code, bips and references from devs.. others however can only reference their chums social thoughts on personality opinions(boring social drama) Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Pmalek on January 08, 2022, 12:19:45 PM The direction in which this thread has gone makes it no longer suitable for Meta. We are no longer discussing whether or not franky1 should/could be banned. The topics now are the Lightning Network, BIPs, and SegWit. It can't be moved to Bitcoin Technical boards, because franky1 is banned from posting there. Maybe locking it would be the best thing to do as there is obviously no support for banning the person. Would be nice to see him calm down a bit though and spread his wings.
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 08, 2022, 01:03:28 PM The direction in which this thread has gone makes it no longer suitable for Meta. This is another problem with franky. You start talking about something and he tries to change the subject with his derailing bad-stats. I demand from pooya87 and franky1 to stop going off-topic here and if they both want to continue their talk in the thread dedicated to franky (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0) (if pooya87 hasn't given up already). Otherwise I'll have to lock it.when i make 4 posts in a topic and 3 get merged into the first. it counts as 3 deleted posts.. Again, I'm not talking about merged posts. They do count as deleted, but aren't those the reason I've started this thread.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: suchmoon on January 08, 2022, 03:14:28 PM You can and should ignore trolls but you can't and shouldn't ignore misinformation because it is misleading anyone who would come upon said posts. Not in this thread though. Pick your fights. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png https://xkcd.com/386/ Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 08, 2022, 04:15:35 PM The direction in which this thread has gone makes it no longer suitable for Meta. This is another problem with franky. You start talking about something and he tries to change the subject with his derailing bad-stats. I demand from pooya87 and franky1 to stop going off-topic here and if they both want to continue their talk in the thread dedicated to franky (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0) (if pooya87 hasn't given up already). Otherwise I'll have to lock it.osts. They do count as deleted, but aren't those the reason I've started this thread.the reasons for wanting me banned is because you dont like my comments about altnets, scaling, bips used for mandatory forks.. and thus i am allowed to defend myself about the reasons. even the 71* post deletions you have pretended are post deletions related to posts which content should disappear fully, rather than merged posts. and i responded to defend that i did not have 71* post deletions which content needed to be removed as for not liking me entering a topic to derail it into another subject. i dislike when you enter topics discussing bitcoin scaling, where you interject to advertise an altnet. i dislike when someone wants to talk about blockchains and again you mention getting them into altnets (that have no blockchain) here is one example https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5364836.0 a user wants to learn about blockchains and become a blockchain developer. and blackhat instead advertises an altnet that has no blockchain if still unsure of examples or want more. or just want to look at the contradictions, there is a search (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=search) function at the top. use it and put LN lightning into the search criteria and put blackhatcoiner into the user. click search and see how many topics are not about altnets/lightning but where blackhat has mentioned LN funny part is. a good PR guy would not see my& others (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5332700.msg56946862#msg56946862)&others (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5367560.msg58274426#msg58274426) dislike of their altnet as a cause to cry, get angry, abusive over and threaten to ban. instead a good PR guy would wonder why are there users that dislike the altnet, and then think of ways to make the altnet better. *oh its no longer 71 its 74.. and those 3 extra are merges, not content removal my issues with altnetters is not that LN exists, my issues are: altnetters saying their alternate network IS bitcoin altnetters saying bitcoiners shouldnt buy coffee on bitcoin altnetters saying bitcoin shouldnt scale because altnet is where people should transact altnetters pretending its 1999 days of floppydisks and dial-up when its obviously 2022 in era of 4tb hard drives and fibre altnetters saying bitcoin is limited in transactions, when its them imposing the limit not change altnetters saying bitcoin is expensive to transact on, when its them imposing the fees not become cheap altnetters saying people dont need to be fullnoders, and to prune off the blockchain because the blockchain is meaningless altnetters saying pruning and only storing UTXO related to 'your wallet' is still helpful to the network as well as all the past stuff where things are being promised as scaling solutions. but never settle,finalise with 100% guarantee. and if anyone hates the grammar usage of buzzwords like altnet fangirls. i did not start the buzzword games. bitcoiners that want bitcoin scaling got called "bigblockers" first.. so fair play, lets play your games if you dont like being called names.. note the irony Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 08, 2022, 10:36:23 PM I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it unless your disagreement is rooted in the oppression of my own rights.
However, I've changed my mind about the ban request. This forum reminds me the significance of freedom it constantly seeks, whether that's from discussions or from the project it's dedicated to. I believe that your right to talk, even propagandistically, is more important than the actual content of your talk. And I'm not locking this, 'cause it'll contradict the above. Whoever wants to add something is welcomed to. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 08, 2022, 11:41:17 PM but dont worry, you dont need to stick your foot out to step up and defend people to the death. especially when your the second inline putting your foot out to trip people up and let them fall off a cliff edge .. to their death.
maybe not try stepping infront of people pretending to defend. but instead just step back a bit, especially if your armour consists of a wearable billboard for an altnet can i just ask one simple question which might clear up the opposition between us and make me understand you better why do you hate blockchains soo much with your pruning crusade and altnet campaigns https://i.imgur.com/oWXhdY3.png what do you have against satoshi's 13 years old invention, which has got you so riled up to be everything against blockchains? Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 09, 2022, 08:48:04 AM why do you hate blockchains soo much with your pruning crusade and altnet campaigns I don't hate the technology. The technology is brilliant. It's the first technology that has to do with finance, politics, psychology and sociology. What I hate is the alibi some people find to adopt it, such as the current madness with NFTs. And it may go even worse: Some people want to connect their tangible properties to that technology which makes no sense to me. Blockchains exist to avoid the central point of failure while the change of the tangible items' rights is a procedure that involves observance of laws.Countless users of Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, <any_other_shitcoin> envision the global adoption of their cryptocurrency and its corresponding features. However, they can't comprehend that this adoption won't do good to them besides their pockets. The devotees believe the governments will get involved with the technology without understanding that... The point is lost if they will. This leaves me to the conclusion they do everything for the profit with a smartly formulated alibi. what do you have against satoshi's 13 years old invention, which has got you so riled up to be everything against blockchains? Have you ever asked yourself if you are against it? You who want everything to happen in your way? Sorry, but you don't get it out of my head; you don't want consensus, but you can't stand without it at the same time. That's why you're using Bitcoin and not a fork. 'Cause you know it's invaluable, but paradoxically, you're against those alternative, innovative solutions such as the LN. Those people's willingness has given you the Bitcoin you're now enjoying.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 09, 2022, 11:20:52 AM sorry but your pretty much copying the mindset of doomad(un-original)
the "franky you want everything your way" rhetoric im not the one doing mandatory forks, banning users, and trying to get users over to altnets heck i(and thousands of others) dont even want patents, NFT, land registry and everything on bitcoin.. bitcoin was invented for digital cash for the unbanked.. thousands of people(including me) just think bitcoin should continue to be used for its purpose. not to be condemned as not-fit-for-purpose just so some other group can sell their other network as what people should use... because that offramping/exodus game is for greed and selfish profit i get it your are not profiting from bitcoin, your jealous of those that do. and so you want to make your profit bank managing peoples payments on another network(routing). i get it its understandable. its human. everyone doesnt want to be poor, everyone wants income to live a lifestyle. no reason to deny your underlying desire for wanting people to use your favoured altnet. yet, im not the one saying bitcoin shouldn't be used for the very thing that it was invented for "digital cash" : white paper im not the one trying to convince others that altnets should replace bitcoins use. heck i have even said if you actually explained why altnets differ from bitcoin, then you might have a better PR campaign for your niche usecase. also i know doomad and now you seem you have targetted me, with the same hitlist and mission plan and scripts, as if im enemy-number-one.. but your rifle scope has limited vision when only looking at one target, you forget that there are thousands of people that want bitcoin scaling. heck you have injected yourself in many topics of such to sell your altcoin. so deep down you know others do want to talk about bitcoin scaling.. no point denying it. you know they exist you think your limited scope of me must be due to me being a ego wanting to be the sole person you see.. yet i wasnt the one handing you the target. i am the one trying to explain there is more then me that exists. im not the big ego you have been told that i am. typically yes, hitmen when on mission with one target only zone in on one person, as if only one person exists in their life that should be killed off. but there are other people. try to accept that. its a known fact that there is more then one person in the world. you only think its just me vs the world because you are only pointing your scope at me and that has blinded you to the rest. im not the big single ego.. your just the one with narrow vision. again looking down a barrel of a scope limits your viewing area. especially when your chums have been the one that handed you the target list of one person, you have become narrow sighted to that one person. it still does not mean there is only one person. even if your chums only have one target. you may not like me. but atleast know im not the only one. even if you have a target list of one ... NFT's are not a bitcoin thing. as for blockchains. they are decentralised, and part of that decentralisation is that many users store the data. thus avoiding the central point of failure thing(yea i noted you trying to propagandise bitcoin as being centralised due to its blockchain(facepalm)). the way laws work is by logging things. there are no laws unless they are wrote down and locked into something that everyone can access to read, understand and accept as the truth the majority can live by. take patents/trademarks. if someone doesnt show they are the first and only inventor. then anyone can make silly claims on that property.. however, by logging who owns an asset is important for a asset owner that wants to own something. EG if owning a house only relied on who can open the door even without the key. then any burglar can take ownership of a house. however houses are locked to an owner by having a ledger that shows a registered ownership. with rules on how that ownership can change officially. LN has keys, yes. but with no network consensus. two people with the keys can fight and argue over ownership. and true ownership only works with trust and amicable agreement to not be dishonest, not blackmail, not agree. and involves punishments and watching what the other person might do 24/7 to try stopping them. which is less secure then registered community wide locks. that the majority can account and audit and agree as who deserves what. blockchains have a deeper and bigger advantage over centralised databases, or amicable agreements of trust and promise. because there is no central point of failure in blockchains. and no trust/honesty, or two party promise involved. yes a blockchain can be manipulated if the dev group is centralised. and i have mentioned that risk often and showed when it has been abused. thats called making the community risk aware. bitcoin is not the ledger for home ownership, nor NFT... not everyones alibi for using bitcoin is to throw every asset into bitcoin, no one has ever said bitcoin is the land ownership registry, the nft registry, the patent registry. bitcoin is a finance/currency network for ONE asset (sats) however if you are against networks being used for different assets. why then support a network like LN that supports many assets. seems a little backwards in arguments to say you are against many assets being used on one network, but then support a network that supports many assets. i actually do want consensus. the true consensus of 2009-2016, as invented by bitcoins inventor. not the bastardised mandatory upgrade 'backward compatibility' non-consensus thing that was used in 2017 where users did not need to upgrade their node before activation is allowed.(backward compatibility" = no vote at node level) nor is true consensus where the miners were threatened to change a flag else get your block rejected before activation(to fake 100% vote) before miners were even given software that would accept the feature if it would activate.(they just needed to change a flag, not their software) consensus is more about a feature that does not activate unless the majority is ready for it. devs didnt like consensus as they only got 45% acceptance nov2016-june 2017 consensus is about no pre activation threat. no rejecting of blocks before activation. consensus is just that it wont activate unless users/pools want it.. consensus is not that it activates and unless people want it they will find themselves on a fork. in 2017 however it was activated before people were ready for it. the vote was counted before pools and users had majority adoption of the software the feature required to use the feature. as for trying to at the end portray i continue to use bitcoin because i must paradoxically like the new gateways into altnets. sorry but no. i like bitcoin for its legacy utility. not its segwit sidesteps into altnets. i can continue to use bitcoin for its legacy features. i dislike the groups that want to tarnish and limit bitcoins legacy features just so they can sell their altnet proposition. i dislike the sidesteps of broken promises that dont help the legacy features scale by groups that want people to move over to an altnet by their propaganda that bitcoins legacy features are broke and limited, even when that group are the ones limiting bitcoins legacy features from scaling. one last thing.. when i say i. its not because i am the only one. . i say i because i speak for myself. there are others, thousands of others that speak for themselves even when others agree with the stuff i say. i do not try to claim "we" are all united as a chummy group of superiority like a special egotist boys club. i would rather have thousands of independent minds agreeing independently, than have a "we" centralised sheeple group singing from the same hymn sheet, hugging and ass kissing each other like a collective of robots. P.S i had another 4 messages deleted today. but before you get excited thinking its content related.. sorry but all 4 were merges. Title: Re: Alternative proposal Post by: DooMAD on January 09, 2022, 02:01:06 PM I had unwatched this topic, but I've had a new idea and it's only suitable for Meta. I'm not going to engage any further with franky1's ludicrous notions about consensus or LN in this topic and would urge everyone to move that conversation to LoyceV's topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.0).
I believe I have a viable solution that allows franky1 to air their views without causing undue disruption: The topics where these issues arise are threads posted in the Bitcoin Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=1.0) board. The forum does not yet have a board dedicated to LN. As such, it is a reasonable assumption that when we are discussing LN in the Bitcoin Discussion board, that it involves LN transactions supported by the Bitcoin blockchain. LN can be used on other networks, but those networks are not Bitcoin. If franky1 has a compulsive urge to discuss LN transactions supported by other blockchains, his thoughts should be posted in the correct part of the forum. Posts about altcoins should be made in the Altcoin Discussion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0) board. Proposal: The moment any user starts talking about LN transactions supported by other blockchains, their post should be moved to Altcoin Discussion. Because that is the correct place for that conversation. If the SMF forum software does not support moving individual posts, then off-topic posts should be deleted and the author of the post can then create it again in the correct subforum. This way, the rules of the forum are being followed. Posts which are clearly off-topic are moved to where they should be. Everyone gets to discuss the aspects of LN they want to discuss and no one is derailing anyone else's topic. Title: Re: Alternative proposal Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 09, 2022, 02:19:02 PM The moment any user starts talking about LN transactions supported by other blockchains, their post should be moved to Altcoin Discussion. Because that is the correct place for that conversation. How can you just move an individual post? Can't you only move threads? Title: Re: Alternative proposal Post by: Pmalek on January 09, 2022, 02:47:27 PM How can you just move an individual post? Can't you only move threads? You can't move posts from one thread to another. The whole thread has to be moved. At least I have never seen something like that in the past. If that was possible, posts that are off-topic in one sub could easily be moved to a different thread in a sub where they are more appropriate. But that isn't happening. However, maybe admins could create a new thread for an off-topic post in its appropriate sub. I doubt they would be interested in doing that as it's time-consuming. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 09, 2022, 03:37:57 PM i have a proposal too
anyone advertising LN as bitcoin. as bitcoinL2 as bitcoin2.0. as bitcoin scaling. as anything pretending to be the bitcoin network. should think deeply about their advertising stance of confusing people. and then realise the N of LN means its not the same network as bitcoin, and just avoid advertising it as being part of the bitcoin network. bitcoin-core. the reference client (which altnet groupies also love describing as the sole place feature upgrades should be allowed via) does not have code that support LN millisats nor LNs peer connection gossip protocols. nor the invoice format and so because its not part of the reference client of the bitcoin network protocol, its not part of the bitcoin network EG its the same as saying a exchange is not "bitcoin" but a niche service if people cannot comprehend the simple task of separating the wording of the function of an exchange from the wording of the function of the bitcoin network. then they need to resist trying to say an exchange is bitcoin Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 09, 2022, 03:44:12 PM i have a proposal too This is why I've made this thread. Because this is not a proposal, but rather a falsely, closed-minded way of understanding things. And it won't get better if you keep reminding it to us every day. Title: Re: Alternative proposal Post by: o_e_l_e_o on January 09, 2022, 04:29:01 PM How can you just move an individual post? Can't you only move threads? You can't move posts from one thread to another.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Smartvirus on January 09, 2022, 07:42:59 PM How can you just move an individual post? Can't you only move threads? You can't move posts from one thread to another. The whole thread has to be moved. At least I have never seen something like that in the past. If that was possible, posts that are off-topic in one sub could easily be moved to a different thread in a sub where they are more appropriate. But that isn't happening. However, maybe admins could create a new thread for an off-topic post in its appropriate sub. I doubt they would be interested in doing that as it's time-consuming. Should the user see the post to contain some valuable information, with the fact that, not so many topics are lacking in the forum, the user could edit, cut and delete old post, while pasting it in a thread of value that discusses said topic. The issue here could be that, the reply wasn't inspired by that thread but that could be moving a post in a way. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 09, 2022, 09:13:52 PM i have a proposal too This is why I've made this thread. Because this is not a proposal, but rather a falsely, closed-minded way of understanding things. And it won't get better if you keep reminding it to us every day. same goes for you and your chums constant reminders of an altnet when people actually want to discuss bitcoin stuff. you may think that showing an "open" exit door of bitcoin and having an "open" entry of the LN cabin/treehouse.. as being "open" minded. pretending its the same thing because there is a path (of many houses) leading sometimes to the treehouse hoping people will be open minded enough to not think critically about it or hoping they are open minded to ignore the issues. but when you do so using coercion, threats, and promises that never seem to flourish.. thats not open. thats opportunistic yes opportunistic. it might contain 3 of the 4 letters of 'open'. but its not the same thing it has been a good laugh seeing you pretend to defend peoples rights to say what they want in a topic you created asking to ban someone for what they said. even when what they said can be backed up by hard data, code and other quotes dont pretend you defend free speech while at the same time asking for a ban. its one of your fatal flaws, contradictions my only requests of you were not to F**k off or fork off or disappear or shut up or get banned. but instead to just learn more about what you PR campaign is about, try a different style. or just word it differently so that its not trying to en-cite an exodus away from bitcoin i do hope you have atleast learned: LN is a different network (secret is in the 'N') LN payments/commitments are 2of2 multisig requiring 2 party permission LN peers communicate/handshake first. and then agree on which blockchain/token use as a peg to share value of and then fund their agreed currency locks and then form the microchannel payment (promises) to actually make payments LN payments of 11 decimals are not the same as commitments or bitcoin transactions if you can learn the ways in which LN is different to bitcoin and blockchains in general. then you might finally be able to achieve a good PR campaign for its niche use-case, by explaining why its different anyway have a good life. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: PrimeNumber7 on January 10, 2022, 03:13:04 AM The moment any user starts talking about LN transactions supported by other blockchains, their post should be moved to Altcoin Discussion. Because that is the correct place for that conversation. How can you just move an individual post? Can't you only move threads? LN transactions can be made across blockchains, provided both support SW. So I could trade BTC for LTC via LN, without trusting anyone. I think these types of posts belong in bitcoin sections as they involve bitcoin and have the potential to improve the bitcoin implementation of LN. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Pmalek on January 10, 2022, 09:34:02 AM LN transactions can be made across blockchains, provided both support SW. So I could trade BTC for LTC via LN, without trusting anyone. I think these types of posts belong in bitcoin sections as they involve bitcoin and have the potential to improve the bitcoin implementation of LN. If you are exchanging altcoins such as Litecoin for Bitcoin or vice versa, that's a topic and discussion that belongs to the altcoin boards. If the topic of discussion were to be BTC to fiat or fiat to BTC, it would fit in Bitcoin subs. I don't like that rule, but that's the way it is. I experienced it myself when I had one of my threads moved to the altcoin boards recently. mprep explained it to me via PMs because I asked for clarification. I dislike the rule, but I respect the decision and understand the explanation. I would like to see it changed because the altcoin boards will kill any attempt on a civilized discussion and exchange of ideas. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 10, 2022, 10:10:59 AM so whats the rule for bitcoin sats for altnet millisats
or better analogy bitcoin sats for sidechain LBTC, Wbtc, and others(like msats) and also, whats the rule for adverting altnets like LN, liquid or bch as "bitcoin2.0" Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Mpamaegbu on January 10, 2022, 01:11:26 PM He might be wrong, his opinions might be loud and in-your-face, but the only thing I'd support is people shunning him if they don't like what he has to say. This is exactly my stance too. We don't have to look at others with disdain because they hold a contrary opinion to ours. What if later ours was found to be wrong and theirs right? What happens then? I believe some of us here might've read about the reaction of the world when the first set of Greek philosophers said the world was spherical. The popular belief then was that the world wasnt. At the end, we know the right thing now. The best anyone can do if they don't like the sound of his opinion is to use the ignore button. That's one of the reasons it's there.The best way to do that is to use the ignore button. That way we can preserve freedom of speech and at the same time you don't have to see posts you know you're not going to want to see. I think the call for a ban for franky1 is an overkill. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 10, 2022, 02:28:08 PM We don't have to look at others with disdain because they hold a contrary opinion to ours. My disdain isn't because franky1 has different opinions. It's because half the time their opinions aren't relevant. Imagine if you were having a conversation with someone about how you prefer your coffee/tea. Then imagine I burst in ranting about how a kettle doesn't have to be used to boil water. It could just as easily be used to boil urine. My statement is factually accurate, despite the part where it's fair to assume that neither of you like your beverages with boiling piss in them. So the point I'm raising is not remotely relevant to the conversation at hand. What if I then take it a step further and accuse you of dishonesty because you are failing to disclose to the person you were speaking with that kettles can be used to boil urine? I declare that it's somehow immoral to assume that coffee/tea would always made with water. And then I then decide to disrupt every future conversation you have about hot beverages to remind everyone that kettles can be used to boil urine. Do you see the problem? It's completely obnoxious behaviour. When a topic is posted in Bitcoin (water) Discussion, franky1 should not be derailing the conversation to talk about "other networks" (piss). Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: suchmoon on January 10, 2022, 02:58:21 PM When a topic is posted in Bitcoin (water) Discussion, franky1 should not be derailing the conversation to talk about "other networks" (piss). He seems to be upset that the discussion is not really about water but about... uhmmm... struggling with analogy here.... snowballs? that can be redeemed for water but are not water. I'm not gonna go on a crusade here but I do find it curious that a hardline approach to non-Bitcoin topics (e.g. posting about smart contracts or GPUs can get your thread moved to altcoin boards) doesn't apply to LN. Perhaps to make things clearly delineated we need an LN board (or a Layer 2 board) that was suggested numerous times but never got traction because apparently there isn't enough post volume on LN topics. Which ironically franky1 can help us with. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 10, 2022, 03:08:48 PM I believe some of us here might've read about the reaction of the world when the first set of Greek philosophers said the world was spherical. Bad analogy. Galileo didn't force you to believe the Earth is spherical. He had made his studies and concluded that it is. The rest were just biased about the perception of the world and would refuse to accept such change. Franky demands from you to stop thinking the way you do and think as he does, because he (thinks he) is right.I don't want to say again that Lightning brings new things to the table, but I'll have to: It's an innovative solution and does good to everybody. Even to those who don't use it. Franky does have a different way of thinking and we ought to allow him talk. But, you know, if you allowed those propagandistic oppressors in Greece explain you why the Earth is flat you'd get some shitty nonsense on repeat. Perhaps to make things clearly delineated we need an LN board (or a Layer 2 board) that was suggested numerous times but never got traction because apparently there isn't enough post volume on LN topics. There is a lot more talk about LN than this pitiful “New forum software” board. Hell, there's more talk about LN even from my local board. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 10, 2022, 03:14:16 PM We don't have to look at others with disdain because they hold a contrary opinion to ours. My disdain isn't because franky1 has different opinions. It's because half the time their opinions aren't relevant. Imagine if you were having a conversation with someone about how you prefer your coffee/tea. Then imagine I burst in ranting about how a kettle doesn't have to be used to boil water. It could just as easily be used to boil urine. My statement is factually accurate, despite the part where it's fair to assume that neither of you like your beverages with boiling piss in them. So the point I'm raising is not remotely relevant to the conversation at hand. What if I then take it a step further and accuse you of dishonesty because you are failing to disclose to the person you were speaking with that kettles can be used to boil urine? I declare that it's somehow immoral to assume that coffee/tea would always made with water. And then I then decide to disrupt every future conversation you have about hot beverages to remind everyone that kettles can be used to boil urine. Do you see the problem? It's completely obnoxious behaviour. When a topic is posted in Bitcoin (water) Discussion, franky1 should not be derailing the conversation to talk about "other networks" (piss). 1. YOU and your chums jump into BITCOIN topics where people want to discuss scaling BITCOIN NETWORK 2. YOU and your chums jump into BITCOIN topics to advertise LN.. 2. i didnt start the swimming pool/hosepipe of piss analogy in the topic you refer to*. im the one saying to you lot to stop talking about other networks in bitcoin specific topics TRY HARDER *reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58791141 monkeyman wanted to talk about features of things on the bitcoin network yet, MK4 then meandered into advertising LN then bitbillo also advertised LN then jackG then did the same mentioning LN then avikz also mentioned LN then o_e_l_e_o also mentioned LN and thats just in the first 5 replies hd49278 was first reply not mentioning LN specifically then titular made another LN advert i then respond at the blatant overstep of exaggerating LN features/function as a bitcoin2.0 thing advertised as where LN is THE solution then the LN bunnies all congregate to attack me, simply because i dared to pull apart the LN advert campaign NeuroticFish and stompix moan about how they cant understand english and THEY compare it using the swimming pool water, hose pipe and piss analogies...(they mentioned those words FIRST) i then respond using THEIR analogies and words Perhaps to make things clearly delineated we need an LN board (or a Layer 2 board) that was suggested numerous times but never got traction because apparently there isn't enough post volume on LN topics. thanks for mentioning this. seems a small group of altnet fangirls think their altnet is talked about more then bitcoin scaling. where they believe there is only 1 person that wants bitcoin to evolve. yes LN specific topics are few and far between which is why the altnet fangirls inject themselves into every bitcoin scaling topic to derail it into advertising their altnet, Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 10, 2022, 03:34:21 PM 1. you jump into BITCOIN scaling topics to advertise LN. And that is acceptable when the sender and recipient use BITCOIN. It is not acceptable to start talking about other blockchains where the sender and recipient are NOT USING THOSE BLOCKCHAINS. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 10, 2022, 03:41:11 PM 1. you jump into BITCOIN scaling topics to advertise LN. And that is acceptable when the sender and recipient use BITCOIN. It is not acceptable to start talking about other blockchains where the sender and recipient are NOT USING THOSE BLOCKCHAINS. go cry to some one that cares, like your chums that use an altnet. you know the altnet that are not bitcoin specific but allow channels with lots of blockchains.. you know the one its called LN. remember.. .. oh wait are you having one of them moments where your are flipping sides again and pretending you are not a LN fan and denying any memory of ever saying such. maybe if your tried to learn about LN rather then just follow some group speach you might understand LN better and how its not a bitcoin fixed system. give yourself 3 weeks, your desire to advertise the ALTnet will return.. usually does after a 3 week mind flip flop event, you have a known pattern. i do laugh when you cry victim even when evidence shows you're the one poking the bear, trying to get it to bite. hence i have no sympathy for you. if you don't like it that i dont hug, kiss, pat you on the back and give you merit everytime you cry.. maybe you should stop getting bears to bite you. then you have no reason to cry Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: jackg on January 11, 2022, 07:29:54 AM Did you message franky when you made this topic? That'd probably have been a better way to go about this if you didn't.
Also banning people for their views is something I don't think this forum has engaged with and probably shouldn't. It's up for users to discuss others views, not just an "I don't like them: smite". then jackG then did the same mentioning LN There are many suggestions for improving throughput and speed already that haven't been adopted (and some throughput work seems to be in the pipeline too, things just take a while for the bitcoin devs to adopt. I also remember receiving similar complaints when I used to suggest litecoin for its speed and low fees. Both are things that rely on blockchain technology and are usable and testable now, we don't have to wait for a 2 year roadmap from the bitcoin devs to test out certain parts of the flexibility of crypto and blockchain (this is not an attack on the devs, it's a mention that picking something less proven but testable can be used elsewhere). I don't think I fully agree with the centralised vision for the LN too but I'd expect there to be decentralised solutions/communities that spring from it. The idea that bitcoin and altcoins are separate is not one that needs to continue, as I've said before, if everything's open source bitcoin can adopt the strangths of other coins anyway. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 11, 2022, 05:54:31 PM the gripe i have about these other networks is not that they exist.
yes people can choose which home they sit in or visit regularly/irregularly. its the matter of them calling these other networks bitcoin2.0. and coercing people to exodus bitcoin for these other networks. tarnishing bitcoin by saying it cant/will never scale. saying it should not be used for daily purchases. etc etc nothing wrong with having a niche service that fits a demograph that want something different. as long as they explain the differences and the risk factors they may come across when using this different thing. like exchanges. people can use them but people should be aware of the 'not your key. not your coin' risk. aswell as highlight examples of being 'goxxed' (mtgox shutdown and value loss) its like mentioning altcoins. showing how BSV is 51% attacked regularly and court transcripts of CSW saying he wants to brutalise the code to gain access to coins he has no keys for. its like highlighting that if someone just has 1 channels on LN their 'payment success' is not 100% guaranteed. its like highlighting that if someone just has channels on LN their partner may stall/delay signing or do other malicious things its like highlighting that if someone just has channels on LN they need to watch 24/7 to notice a malicious partner broadcast and so on but to just uptopian fantasy PR that LN/BSV is bitcoin2.0 and the solution to bitcoin utility of all users no matter the value they want to use.. thats just BAD on so many levels Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 11, 2022, 07:06:05 PM its the matter of them calling these other networks bitcoin2.0. I think you'll find, in the example you linked to (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.0) the ONLY person to refer to it as "bitcoin 2.0" was YOU. Stop projecting your psychosis onto others, please. and coercing people to exodus bitcoin for these other networks If the sender and the recipient both agree to use Bitcoin, where is the "exodus"? The funds never leave the Bitcoin blockchain, you raving loon. No funds can ever leave the blockchain. Why doesn't a single argument you present make an ounce of sense? If anything, you are the one promoting other blockchains because you literally won't shut up about them while the rest of us are trying to talk about Bitcoin. It is clear that LN can be used with other compatible blockchains. But that is completely off-topic for the Bitcoin Discussion board. Start a topic in the Altcoin Discussion board, because that's where it belongs. This is not a difficult concept. Anyone is free to discuss LN when the sender and recipient are both using Bitcoin, because it's supported by Bitcoin's blockchain. If you want to talk about LN being supported by other blockchains, it is not relevant and does not belong in Bitcoin discussion. As a side point, you also fail to inform all the people you're trying to "save" from us "fangirls" that far fewer people use those other blockchains and their experience will likely be less favourable. If you are permitted to continue derailing topics by talking about altcoins, then why aren't you making it clear to people that the chances of having a payment routed on Vertcoin's Lightning network is effectively less than 1%? Oh look, suddenly it is you who are being the "utopian dreamer" and acting as though people will have the same experience on other blockchains. Two can play at that game, shitweasel. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 11, 2022, 08:33:47 PM Did you message franky when you made this topic? That'd probably have been a better way to go about this if you didn't. I honestly can't communicate with franky. It becomes impossible for me after a while, I don't know about others.It's up for users to discuss others views, not just an "I don't like them: smite". First of all, franky doesn't just discuss other views and second, that's what I said;It's down to you to support my statement that what he does is trolling. What I also said is that I've changed my mind about the ban request, but you decided to answer like there's no discussion made.nothing wrong with having a niche service that fits a demograph that want something different. as long as they explain the differences and the risk factors they may come across when using this different thing. They do explain the risk factors such as the cheat that can result in a penalty transaction, the loss of funds by losing the backups or even the loss of funds by going offline.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 12, 2022, 12:48:00 AM doomad:
(normal grammar naziism about thinking i mean exact buzzword, rather than PR campaign context (meaning) that results in advertising LN as the next bitcoin. or the next evolution of bitcoin or 'is the bitcoin network' EG 'layer two' L2 bitcoin layer, bitcoin solution. " It is layer 2. It operates on top of Bitcoin, ergo it's a layer. you might want to check the bitcoin course code for any lines of code that have the peer connection stuff related to connecting to LN.. oh wait, ill save you time.. there are none so to highlight ill quote your misleading words Neither. They are connected networks, not separate. Misleading question. .... Oh good. Something that I can actually answer without accepting any misleading rhetoric. LN does function on top of other blockchains. And that's a positive quality, not a negative one. If other networks are deploying LN to allow people to transact off-chain, then it must have some useful purpose. My view is forever locked in. I can now never deny that other altcoins can use LN. Although I can't think of a time where I ever tried to deny that. So, congratulations, I guess? What did you hope to achieve by this? take this little mis information above.. pretending LN is 'connected to bitcoin' (my printer is connected to my PC and my PC uses the internet. this does not mean my printer is a layer of the internet, or is the internet or is connected to the internet. or is internet L2) bitcoin reference protocol client(bitcoin core) has no code in it to connect to the LN LN has no code to connect to bitcoin network. it just API call one software to another software at local level not network level (my printer USB comms my PC. my PC ethernet calls my internet hub. .... my printer does not use the internet, th einternet does not use my printer) all bitcoin does is lock value in. that is it. bitcoin core(bitcoin network protocol reference client) does not have the handshake/'gossip' protocols of LN bitcoins core network protocol client does not have code for 'channels' etc etc bitcoin networks DNS seed does not list LN nodes along side bitcoin nodes lightning networks DNS seed does not list bitcoin nodes along side lightning nodes ... LN is a separate network. when handshaking peers on the LN network using LN based software. you are not at that point subject to bitcoin. bitcoin-core (bitcoin network reference client) does not have the LN handshake peer connection protocol. thus LN is not a bitcoin thing once established on LN via LN software, you can then set channels that used locked pegged coin of many blockchains (that never leaves a blockchain network) and you then transact on LN using millisat tokens pegged at 1sat:1000msat. but LN is not transacting btc because btc does not leave the bitcoin network The funds never leave the Bitcoin blockchain, gotta laugh when doomad was saying how LN transacts btc.. then contradicts by saying (finally truthfully) that btc never leaves the bitcoin network.(thank you Doomad for finally admitting such, one step forward for you, dont step back later though) They do explain the risk factors such as the cheat that can result in a penalty transaction, the loss of funds by losing the backups or even the loss of funds by going offline. not always.. like the ones trying to deny the 90% fail rate of the 2018 LN pizza experiment. and a LN devs 70% fail rate being brushed under the carpet...with "i dont know why they failed. maybe they took another route" heck even you just glossed over the crucial stuff.. "They do explain the risk factors such as the cheat that can result in a penalty transaction" said so relaxed as if its a given/nothing to worry about/non issue... not explaining that a penalty is not implemented if someone cheat. its implemented if when someone cheats someone else is there to spot the cheat and "can" if they have the access implement a penalty. its like saying dont worry if your bank account is hacked the bank will pay you back. hinting to go ahead and not worry about security/getting hacked. without explaining thats not always the case and involves a headache of admin and conversation and negotiation. its not some auto-refund. and its not a 100% guarantee. people should actually care about their account security. its like saying dont worry about depositing into MTGox in 2013, the court system is there.. try saying that to those that lost to MTGox in 2013-4, they will look at you and laugh and say you should try to tell people about 'not your key not your coin' and only deposit what your willing to lose, dont deposit into custodians long term and other things. these glossing's over make people feel that LN is safe because a penalty clause is there.. without stating that penalty clause doesnt activate if cheated automatically. it requires being watched 24/7 to notice a cheat. and having ability to use the penalty. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 12, 2022, 07:44:08 AM *noise* And here we reach the inevitable point in the topic where this user starts spouting technobabble. Something that gives a vague pretense of trying to sound scientific, but is essentially just attempting to mask their logical fallacy with a wall of text. They simultaneously accept that funds never leave the Bitcoin blockchain when using LN, but deny LN and Bitcoin are connected. It cannot be both. Watch them squirm. //EDIT: Yep, franky1 cries "grammar" because his special brain doesn't do logic. He can't counter the argument, so he whines about unrelated things. Including something to do with me quoting an article and claiming them to be my words when they aren't. Undeniably a sociopath. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LoyceV on January 12, 2022, 08:49:40 AM its the matter of them calling these other networks bitcoin2.0. I think you'll find, in the example you linked to (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.0) the ONLY person to refer to it as "bitcoin 2.0" was YOU.https://loyce.club/other/shitcoin2.0.png all these subliminal and subtle hints that it IS bitcoin2.0. Maybe the "subliminal" signature worked on franky1?I honestly can't communicate with franky. It becomes impossible for me after a while, I don't know about others. I feel you:I'm not a native English speaker, and it's kinda hard to understand what you mean if you talk about "altnetters", "flip flop", "waffy clauses" and "flip floppers". Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: dkbit98 on January 12, 2022, 03:19:49 PM I honestly can't communicate with franky. It becomes impossible for me after a while, I don't know about others. You two are having some history for sure, and I think it started with full and pruned nodes discussion if not even earlier.Sometimes it is nice to talk with someone that is totally opposite from you and you don't have to agree with them, but if you can't stand them anymore you can always click magical Ignore button. It solves many problems in forum, shame it's not working so good in real life :D I was thinking the same thing: I've only seen "Bitcoin 2.0" used by franky1. But in the topic you referred to, 9 posts above franky1's posts in which he mentions "bitcoin2.0" 5 times, it's mentioned in some shitcoin's signature I saw many people talking about mythical bitcoin 2.0 and it can be applied to all shitcoins that ever existed and tried to make a ''better'' bitcoin.Just for fun I searched who mentioned that phrase most in forum and I got some interesting results... mister frankyone is in top five of the list with 90 times, but absolute champion is Vlad2Vlad, followed closely by philipma1957 and JayJuanGee. Code: 1. Vlad2Vlad [110] EDIT: there could be some errors with this stats, maybe someone could propose some way to fix it. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LoyceV on January 12, 2022, 03:54:31 PM Code: 12. LoyceV [48] Quote EDIT: there could be some errors with this stats, maybe someone could propose some way to fix it. I don't think a search without quotes is possible.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: dkbit98 on January 12, 2022, 04:45:45 PM I don't think a search without quotes is possible. I did the same search but without space this time, so I was typing bitcoin2.0 and I got result with much less members, and mister frankyone is again on top, this can't be a coincidence :DAgain, this result could be with some errors, probably because NinjasticSpace website and TryNinja don't have any smart bots or algorithms for detecting multiple words with accuracy. It did record you two times saying this phrase and it was all done today, same as for myself... space makes a big difference. Code: 1. BigKush [133] Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 12, 2022, 04:46:45 PM i hear the sounds of the violins of the grammar nazi song..
... you are failing in debunking the CONTEXT of your advertisings you know you are trying to pretend LN is bitcoin. using many buzzwords and slogans and mottos and phrases, like bitcoinL2, layer 2 and such, by saying "we never promoted it as (context) bitcoins next big network, bitcoins next evolution because we never said specific buzzword" its about the CONTEXT of calling LN a bitcoin network or bitcoin solution or the many variations of meaning the same thing as what others try when they say their network is 'bitcoin2.0' even if they dont use the actual buzzword, they still infer it so try to turn down your grammar nazi buzzword violin music and think beyond your silly buzzwords and realise the context is the point. its like you punch a bear. and then say "i never touched the bear" trying to pretend you never punched it. because you want to argue that a "touch" is different then a "punch" even though it infers the same thing when someone accuses you of "touching" a bear so go play your silly games elsewhere. because they dont work on me. many can and have seen the same group of people inferring LN is bitcoin and an extension upgrade of bitcoin. a solution, etc etc.. even though bitcoin core has no lines of code in regards to LN peer handshaking, micropayment channel creation or route gossip, thus its not anyway near what the inferences by certain people pretend LN is anyways. some notable names Code: 7. DooMAD [5] Code: 3. JayJuanGee [107] oh.. and if doomad is wondering why i used "exodus" buzzword.. well.. its actually Doomads buzzword.. http://bitcoinist.net/core-protocol-issues-can-lead-to-a-bitcoin-exodus/ Quote The recent Bitcoin network issues are a significant threat to the viability and prospects of the Bitcoin ecosystem. In fact, various people are claiming they are leaving Bitcoin and invest their money elsewhere, in some of the more promising blockchain-based projects, such as Ethereum, Maidsafe, and others. But is there a real Bitcoin exodus happening, or is this just a phase community members have to go through before things can take off? The Bitcoin Exodus Is Slightly Overstated – For Now One thing’s for sure, though: plenty of people are fed up with the current block size debate and the network issues that have been taking place as of late. While delayed transactions were sorted out eventually after slightly over a full day, the situation pointed out how the Bitcoin network is not ready to handle a significant increase in transactions as of yet. At the same time, there is a bit of confusion going on in the Bitcoin community as to why the increase to 2MB network blocks is taking so long. Both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Classic developer teams seem to agree on this growth, yet it will take at last a few more weeks until it is integrated into the main fork of Bitcoin development. This indecisiveness could lead to a Bitcoin exodus at some point, though. he mentioned it first in this forum, i just mentioned it as a subtle hint of something.. wondering if he would pick up the hint.. oh and one last point.. even in this topic where people have been saying bitcoin is LN and LN is bitcoin and many varients of such using different buzzwords, slogans, mottos and phrasing inferring the same thing.. DooMAD seems to have memory issues... how about realise that LN is not a bitcoin sole feature. it was not designed for bitcoin.. bitcoin actually had to be changed to fit LN, not the other way round How about realise that we already know that. You talk as though you're revealing some sort of greater truth to us, like we're total simpletons who don't get it. We know what we're doing. It's what we want to do. seems he want to forget what he knew. pretend he never learned it. then argue the opposite of what he knew and then cry if ever called a simpleton by later flipping to the opposite of his old debate and pretend he did know it again. .. i am just waiting for him to flip back to things known in 2018. and he can finally stop pretending LN is bitcoin. but we all know these people like to contradict even themselves and flip their own debate against their own opinion, funny part is my opinions never flipped. never flopped. cant say the same for others Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on January 12, 2022, 05:51:08 PM They simultaneously accept that funds never leave the Bitcoin blockchain when using LN, but deny LN and Bitcoin are connected. Alright, so let's stop talking about the technical stuff in here. It's clear that franky has a different interpretation about how things work in life. The phrase “connected with” is also a bit misleading. Like what does it mean exactly? In chaos theory (butterfly effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect)) everything is connected with everything.You could also state that Lightning is connected with Vitalik Buterin's mom and be correct in certain contexts. even though bitcoin core has no lines of code in regards to LN peer handshaking, micropayment channel creation or route gossip, thus its not anyway near what the inferences by certain people pretend LN is This is why it's genius. anyways. some notable names Um... That's me telling you to stop saying the same shit like bitcoin2.0. Oh no! Now I'm at 4.Code: 12. BlackHatCoiner [3] oh.. and if doomad is wondering why i used "exodus" buzzword.. well.. its actually Doomads buzzword.. Yes, and it was also said by a billion people before DooMAD. It's the way you're using a word that makes you look a bad person, you moron.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Timelord2067 on January 12, 2022, 10:16:42 PM i hear the sounds of the violins of the grammar nazi song.. Try reading something instead of typing for the next hour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party Code: ~franky1 Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 13, 2022, 02:15:33 AM and coercing people to exodus bitcoin for these other networks If the sender and the recipient both agree to use Bitcoin, where is the "exodus"? The funds never leave the Bitcoin blockchain, you raving loon. No funds can ever leave the blockchain. Why doesn't a single argument you present make an ounce of sense? Yes, and it was also said by a billion people before DooMAD. It's the way you're using a word that makes you look a bad person, you moron. if people are not transacting on the bitcoin network regularly, and instead they are using some cell phone LN app to pay for their coffee(not realistic to carry a PC into starbucks just to buy a coffee). then obviously they are not going to be a full bitcoin node. and instead going to be running a litewallet. with a 'watchtower manager" and a custodial channel(factory hub) that gave them liquidity(and the LN PR group know this scenario, its their game plan) 'loon, moron'? seems im not the one shouting insults regularly.. but its a certain group that loves to poke the bear with insults, then cry when they get bit. (not the first time i highlighted this tactic being used) also. when vaulting up gold to then use bank notes.. its no longer gold hoarding by general people. but hoarding via banks and thus an exodus of gold hoarding(by general people) and an entrance of fiat hoarding. (wild west gold swapped for crappy fiat) same goes for the tactic LN PR group want. lock up bitcoin, get people to play with millisats for weeks/months, give them ways to not settle back to bitcoin, but instead keep 'rebalancing' their millisat joint accounts. and when they finally want out.. the last phase mention how bitcoin is too expensive and offer altcoin as the settled asset(atomic swap). thats not new economics, nor smart economics, nor anything innovative or original, nor does it benefit millions of bitcoin users.. thats old economics that benefits those who invented the banks (ln channels) much like how the banks vaulted gold, gave out bank notes and then at redemption of banknotes, offered copper, brass, nickel coins instead of the gold.. its the oldest economic tactic in the book. even medieval england kings hoarded his villagers gold and handed them out 'notched sticks' to play around with for daily purchases. .. so when you see a LN fangirl shout how they dont want users to use bitcoin for daily spend activities like buying coffee or food or train tickets or anything people buy regularly.. you can see their game in play Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: philipma1957 on January 13, 2022, 03:44:52 AM and coercing people to exodus bitcoin for these other networks If the sender and the recipient both agree to use Bitcoin, where is the "exodus"? The funds never leave the Bitcoin blockchain, you raving loon. No funds can ever leave the blockchain. Why doesn't a single argument you present make an ounce of sense? Yes, and it was also said by a billion people before DooMAD. It's the way you're using a word that makes you look a bad person, you moron. if people are not transacting on the bitcoin network regularly, and instead they are using some cell phone LN app to pay for their coffee(not realistic to carry a PC into starbucks just to buy a coffee). then obviously they are not going to be a full bitcoin node. and instead going to be running a litewallet. with a 'watchtower manager" and a custodial channel(factory hub) that gave them liquidity(and the LN PR group know this scenario, its their game plan) 'loon, moron'? seems im not the one shouting insults regularly.. but its a certain group that loves to poke the bear with insults, then cry when they get bit. (not the first time i highlighted this tactic being used) also. when vaulting up gold to then use bank notes.. its no longer gold hoarding by general people. but hoarding via banks and thus an exodus of gold hoarding(by general people) and an entrance of fiat hoarding. (wild west gold swapped for crappy fiat) same goes for the tactic LN PR group want. lock up bitcoin, get people to play with millisats for weeks/months, give them ways to not settle back to bitcoin, but instead keep 'rebalancing' their millisat joint accounts. and when they finally want out.. the last phase mention how bitcoin is too expensive and offer altcoin as the settled asset(atomic swap). thats not new economics, nor smart economics, nor anything innovative or original, nor does it benefit millions of bitcoin users.. thats old economics that benefits those who invented the banks (ln channels) much like how the banks vaulted gold, gave out bank notes and then at redemption of banknotes, offered copper, brass, nickel coins instead of the gold.. its the oldest economic tactic in the book. even medieval england kings hoarded his villagers gold and handed them out 'notched sticks' to play around with for daily purchases. .. so when you see a LN fangirl shout how they dont want users to use bitcoin for daily spend activities like buying coffee or food or train tickets or anything people buy regularly.. you can see their game in play Actually I side more with franky1 and against the LN network So if he wants to attack LN network he should. There is a lot of complexity as to why we should or should not have LN I think in the long run it will hurt BTC but then again maybe not. @ franky1 on every ln thread you should simply say you think the ln network will kill off btc in the long run. You should try to limit posts to 1 or 2 per page. but you should keep them up. I don't post on the LN threads, but I think they could be wrong you could be right. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 13, 2022, 04:50:22 AM the issue is for every time i rebutt their altnet advertising, they just enter another debate of "franky1 wrong coz troll" (actually its them becoming the troll)
my remarks explain the concept of how things work on LN using references and things that can be backed up by code and real life stuff.. their remarks dont explain how it works(in their opinion). and just social drama queen how im wrong, without actually providing code, data. i fully understand im not making their advert campaigns easy for them. i understand they dont like it. but i can back up what i say with code, bips and quotes and block data all they can do is insult and basically say "wrong because troll"(boring and non explanatory rebuttal of no substance) i have nothing against them deciding they want to use an altnet. i have nothing against them playing around with millisats. my only issue is them trying to convince others that LN: is bitcoin in the same manner of saying a printer is the internet, just because a printer connects to a PC locally and a pc connects to the internet.(facepalm) it replaces bitcoin as peoples daily use crypto. by pretending millisats are bitcoin, by saying LN peers are bitcoin peers. that the handshaking and code is the same network, and that people then should not use the actual bitcoin. but instead treat msats as bitcoin instead. (treat bank-promissory-notes as gold(facepalm)) yea it sounds silly to call a printer the internet or call a printer a 'internetL2', or even call the internet a 'printerL2'. yea its silly to call bank notes a goldL2. or call gold a "bank noteL2".. but thats their PR campaign. and its just sad how foolish they are about it, to try to believe it soo viciously and adamantly. they have on multiple occasions shown how they want to call bitcoin the flaw and LN the utopia(facepalm) i have actually on multiple occasions said if they explain the differences they would have a better campaign. but they declined to change and instead just cried over how im trying to show how LN is different and making people aware of the risks. it has been a great laugh that they only call me a troll because someone they like called me a troll, because someone-of-someone they liked called me a troll. again just social drama posturing of no merit. but it is good to use their own contradictions and admissions against them, even if they do forget 3 weeks later that they got debunked. maybe if they can check their own opinion and stick to an opinion that can be backed up by code and hard data, without contradictions(flip flops) they might have a better narrative. instead of resorting to pages of social drama in short. if they stick to facts and not social loyalty ass kissing of a certain group. then there would not be any social drama ending in pages of silly arguments Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on January 13, 2022, 07:25:46 PM the issue is for every time i rebutt their altnet advertising, they just enter another debate of "franky1 wrong coz troll" (...) all they can do is insult and basically say "wrong because troll"(boring and non explanatory rebuttal of no substance) I would call that self-inflicted. If a forum user has spent years undermining their own credibility by making fallacious and sometimes even libellous (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226421.0) statements, most reasonable people will naturally start to doubt what that user is saying. Cause and effect. I mean, look at some of the replies in that topic. You did this to yourself. People see you as a joke. You have fully earned your reputation: He is a full-time forum troll and a bitcoin hater. Considering that heavy trolling is against the forum rules I am surprised he is still around. Old members know this piece of shit very well. He is against every major bitcoin update there is because blorgstream bla bla bla typical Roger funded fuckface Surely in this case it's the same as suing a dog for pissing on your lamppost. They can't help it. It's just what they do. The screeds of excruciatingly boring shite on this subject are as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. A broken chatbot programmed by a mong with 3 tape recorded phrases to work with would be less predictable. Franky will always lose his marbles when it comes to anything related to LN. Unfortunately for him, his arguments are really pathetic and most of the time when he enters discussions he has no clue about what he is talking, no wonder he was banned from certain sections fo the forum. He's highly annoying and sometimes a flat-out troll but on occasion I've been forced to learn something just to be able to counter his bullshit And that's just one topic. But no, we're supposedly the bad guys for not respecting you when all you do is lie through your teeth. You need to start giving us a reason to take you seriously. Act like a troll, get treated like a troll. Take some responsibility for your own actions. You can't blame us for how we see you. Well... clearly you can try to blame us, because that's exactly what you're doing now, but we're still going to see you as a troll. but i can back up what i say with code, bips and quotes and block data If by that you mean you reference something and then immediately draw a flawed conclusion from it, or deliberately twist it to mean something that was never intended, then sure. You're the undisputed master of that. #1 champ. I don't post on the LN threads You should. I believe you to be a knowledgeable, well-respected member of the board with a great deal of integrity. I would much rather listen to arguments against LN from users like you. Your posts would make sense and be based in reality. The problem is becoming increasingly apparent. If everyone is piling in to bash franky1's insanely terrible posts, where all he does is alienate people and wind them up, then perhaps the message is getting a little one-sided as a result. We need sensible posters who can make logical arguments about issues with LN. Something franky1 has demonstrated time and time again that he simply cannot do. Please, philipma1957, head over to the other topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.0) and join the discussion so we can have some balance. //EDIT: shame you lost the argument before you even posted it today you were debunked 2 years ago. In order to debunk something, you have to prove a point. All you do is find things that sound loosely related to the thing you are talking about and then twist their meaning to pretend they support your stance. Utterly dishonest scum. The statement was made unequivocally by bitrefill that you are wrong and all you could do was argue "but millisats" like a brain-damaged parrot: Calling any of what we do with Lightning fractional or custodial is literally false. The coins in the turbo channel are owned by the recipient the moment they are pushed, they have control and can close the channel to claim them or route a payment to spend them. No one can print new Bitcoin in LN, and no one can double-encumber any coins in LN. bit refill go into detail about msats vs sats.. i dare you You are the one who is debunked. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on January 15, 2022, 12:53:59 AM all i read is a Doomad boring personal statement
oh and my description (with reference) on the LN turbo 'debt/credit of unfunded channels.. If a forum user has spent years undermining their own credibility by making fallacious and sometimes even libellous (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5226421.0) statements, giving people balance in a new channel without the 'funding' confirmed(turbo), nor locked to a keypair set by the customer and service.. (thor(pre locked funds by bitrefill months before customer uses it)) that not libel. thats their feature 'unconfirmed funding' 'voluntary rule agreement' 'custom channel' are THEIR words. not mine also if you want to read THEIR descriptions. here some other examples of what THEIR feature does https://medium.com/@akumaigorodski/instant-channels-enable-safe-lightning-payments-with-unconfirmed-funding-8d640defa183 https://github.com/lightning/bolts/issues/565#issuecomment-460601680 Quote 'but I prefer more meaningful names for things. I'd suggest zeroconf_spendable_push' Quote 'Dangerous proposal! If you want zero conf, use bcash!!!!! This would be a bad precedent if introduced to LN; however, nobody would stop you from wanting to be robbed though, can't you implement it only for your own biz? tongue NACK!' and no dont play the game of reciting "thor" option trying to make "thor" sound like "turbo", or 'turbo' sound like 'thor'. they are different options. "thor" uses funding logged pegged blockchain confirmed transactions. "turbo" uses unfunded unconfirmed unlocked balance(no peg) oh and this: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/895 note how many times the words 'fake' and 'trust' are mentioned (spoiler 'fake':10 'trust':11) .. but it has been fun watching you scrape the bottom of the barrel.. trying to find something to argue about.. shame you lost the argument before you even posted it today you were debunked 2 years ago. im just reminding you. no need to reply with a cry. just move onto a new subject. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 08:36:19 AM I'm digging up this thread, because I honestly don't know where to elsewhere write about this.
Don't know if he was doing it in the past, but franky1 now apparently disapproves of his posts being deleted, and decides to remake them. You can check it out on ninjastic.space (https://ninjastic.space/search?author=franky1), it's all his posts on "NFTs in the Bitcoin blockchain - Ordinal Theory". I'm perpetually getting notifications of the same shitpost that gets deleted right afterwards. How childish is this? Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: digaran on February 08, 2023, 04:09:24 PM Isn't he the only recognizable opposition in this forum? Lets just keep silencing the voice of opposition until there is nobody left, and then suck on our thumbs wondering how to find a way to convey our ideas about certain things.
Hearing the opposition is always good because it helps to improve. I don't see anything wrong with his deleted posts other than a dictatorial moderation policy in those dangerous waters ( boards ). Moreover, posting the same content on several topics to emphasize on an important idea to be considered by others is not a bad thing. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 04:19:30 PM firstly you want to control how i talk.. emphasis control
then you want to control what i talk about emphasis control then you want to control where i talk emphasis control then you want to control if i should be allowed to talk emphasis control hmm very revealing. it says more about you then me i have always been clear. this is an open discussion forum.. and i am frank as for this forum and the reason i reposted a certain post content in the last couple days.. its more so that if you look at the technical discussion topic. there is alot of hype promoting of letting NFT continue. but any real talk of REAL fixes get deleted, removed and not talked about.. just look at the lack of discussion of a real fix.. yet we know the ordinals (buzzword of a type of NFT on bitcoin) are a problem of bloat and other issues.. its not childish to be trying to talk about solutions, nor about critiquing the causes, nor childish to mention what the wider community should be reviewing and pointing their eyes towards causes and real fixes its childish to have a man child with abilities to delete proposals, solutions and fixes to then has his firends pretend there is no fix and instead promote getting people to make bitcoin a premium expense system to make it unappealing to use as a payment system achow is abusing his mod privilege he is mod of too many things. he wants a central point of failure (core) to only be reviewed internally(centrally) where it is moderated by core, and there is no critique or negative words said beyond 'Nack' yep in recent months he wants to add a mod layer to github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26890) adding more self serving power, where any critical negative comments are removed. and instead any negative stuff is pretty much only allowed if its fits into a small criteria of formatting to make it difficult to critique a flaw/developer. heck he even wants to change the ACK Nack scheme.. he and a certain fews dont believe in the concept of decentralisation.. and do not believe in independent validation, review, scrutiny, critique. where instead the very same core maintainers of every part of bitcoin discussion moderation teams and yet you want them to have free reign to say and do as they please because "free speech" while then censoring out anything that goes against the core way. maybe look outslde your childish view of things and think more outside your playground Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 04:23:32 PM Isn't he the only recognizable opposition in this forum? In terms of mental health, sure.Hearing the opposition is always good because it helps to improve. But hearing the same bullshit, for millionth times repeated and debunked arguments does not. Also, not being civil does not. I don't see anything wrong with his deleted posts other than a dictatorial moderation policy in those dangerous waters ( boards ). Dictatorial? Buddy, a forum board has rules. And those rules are better to be enforced. This forum, while far from perfect moderation, does fit in this category as well. franky1 just feels like the rules aren't proper, or that the moderators abuse their power; apparently, only to him. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 04:29:11 PM me dictatorial???
im not the one with mod powers or chummy with those with mod powers trying to get people banned im not even trying to be chummy to those with mod powers or gain power myself your group are the centralist group that dont want independent/outside review. your group adore the central point of failure your group are the ones that tell people if they dont like core, fork off to an altcoin and leave core alone YOUR groups social club are the dictators look at your actions. look at this topic YOU created. heck i recently thought you were trying to escape your dictator group. and go independent.. i even thought id suggest you should have a chance to become a greek mod. as long as you dont act like a greek GOD my suggestions are just suggestions. unlike the powers your group try to attain for your personal centralist shenanigans as for debunking me.. with actual hard data of something rally hard and provable in actual code or blockdata.. i doubt it all your chums ever do is say i been debunked by quoting another social post of a chum of yours saying i was debunked where their source is another chums saying i was debunked.. or where you think you got a win becasue of grammar mistakes Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 04:34:47 PM Who called you dictatorial?
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 04:42:56 PM Who called you dictatorial? you and your buddy doomad.. you both echo the same crap ..its why i call you the madhatter title.. you to echo off each other the same songs literally a single central mindset. oh wait your songs are "totalitarian" aww you thought you escaped it because of a synonym mistake its more funny how you want to delete/ban forum topics/people that want bitcoin to be a open payment system for the unbanked(low income) its more funny how you want bloat and and cause expensive fees on bitcoin its funny how you want to plead to moderators to ban and delete users that are not kissing the core club party bus its funny how you want to control who, how and what people say. yet you only want freedom within your idolised central clubhouse the real funny in 2019 gmaxwell broke. he got alot of hounding from certain newbies recrutied into (oops i nearly let the punch line slip) to pester gmax into getting me banned from that category and guess which group done this it was this same group then used the thing that they instigated as a reason to then perpetually say i should stop doing x.y,z due to mod saying something (certain groups self fullfilling agenda) the reason i am not going to kiss the ring and toe the party bus is becasue it goes against bitcoins principles and needs to be highlighted that its not what bitcoin was created for i am not trying to gain an opposing army(unlike some). i am simply suggesting people do some research outside the song sheet that certain group hands out and yes i get attacked for it.. but i dont care about it. i just lose the respect to speak nicely to those types of people i speak frank . and i have no fear in it. you want to control me. but that says more about you then me Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 05:04:56 PM I meant who called you dictatorial in this discussion?
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: digaran on February 08, 2023, 05:05:59 PM Who called you dictatorial? I think he misunderstood my comment. ( maybe not ).But hearing the same bullshit, for millionth times repeated and debunked arguments does not. Also, not being civil does not. I see no debunked arguments regarding the recent NFT topic, maybe you should provide a technically sound and reasonable counter argument as evidence, e.g. like if someone says that the sun is made of water, you could disprove the notion by providing scientific evidence.But if someone doesn't like your policies on a certain subject and you call their opinion bullshit and try to censor their voice, is by definition dictatorial behavior, which nobody likes especially regarding a supposed decentralized system. So, yes both achow and maxwell are autocrats, as if they know better than everyone else. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 05:30:33 PM I meant who called you dictatorial in this discussion? ( v sarcasm v )please sir can i have the kings permission to use references that are analogies or synonyms of dictatorial, such as dictate, dictator, totalitarian, oppressor. ( ^ sarcasm ^) or are you going to play silly grammar games of specificity limitation for a speech/proof control aspect. can i show you your examples of synonyms and where you compare me to being such synonyms / compared analogies... of a claimed dictatorial in this topic and dont worry i will limit the examples to just this topic and i wont even bother to quote your work-wifes quotes which you follow and sing alot to.. or ill be hear for months copy and pasting so screw it i wont wit for the king permissions , ill go ahead anyway. ill pick out a couple.. i wont even wall spam you with your many examples and your buddy group song sheets saying the same things. In case you were unaware, franky1 is banned from Development and Technical Discussion I'm aware, it's just that Lightning discussions can happen outside this sub-forum and he will still take the chance to dictate with his opinion. Franky does have a different way of thinking and we ought to allow him talk. But, you know, if you allowed those propagandistic oppressors in Greece explain you why the Earth is flat you'd get some shitty nonsense on repeat. funny point to end it with "we ought to allow him" (sarcasm->) aww king madhat, you allow me do you, aww you are so kind (pfft) stop being the centralised totalitarians yourself whilst trying to pretend you dont want control of the code and then pretend its others that want control even when all they do is poit out your groups central points of control to make bitcoin messy bloat and expensive to not be a payment network just so you lot can then offramp people to other networks so you can middle men scrub them of their value by getting profits out of them (yes self custody doesnt make businesses get profits. so those sponsored people in your centralised group will do anything to get bitcoiners into situations that profit/ benefit the sponsors of features you lot idolise or are paid to defend) your games and reasons and efforts are not subtle Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LoyceV on February 08, 2023, 05:58:21 PM ( v sarcasm v ) You have a very unfriendly discussion style. Do you enjoy attacking anyone who talks to you?please sir can i have the kings permission to use references that are analogies or synonyms of dictatorial, such as dictate, dictator, totalitarian, oppressor. ( ^ sarcasm ^) Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 06:08:05 PM what you wil find. should you do research.. is that i have been in this forum long before most of you lot came trolling in with your social trolls, of defending certain entity/teams
you lot came at me and started with your crap, circle jerking the same stuf and using each other as proof of each others confirmation bias.. and over time yes i felt you dont deserve respect. take this topic.. this topic is you lot trying to kill me out of the forum and you expect me to kiss the ring and be all "thank you for the privilege of remaining, my lord" screw that, i get to defend myself and be as frank as i like if you are surprised by my frankness.. i think you have not been paying attention to the obvious like my name when you lot have a centralist agenda. and i point it out and then you lot name call me.. expect me to lose any polite expression towards you. especially when you lot have been playing these games for a couple years now. this is not the first time we have discussed this. yet you keep acting like you are an innocent newbie that deserves respect.. or wait. is it that you think you are a god/king that demands an expectation of respect? sounds like the latter this is a discussion forum much like other social networks. it is not a business meeting. even if your other conversations with your colleagues of your persuasion act like this is a business meeting platform.. but thats more on you for being in a business situation in regards to what you are allowed and not allowed to say(im leaning towards you being sponsored into defending certain entities, because i lack seeing any large independent thought or opinions in certain topics by you lot, its too coincidentally similar how your echos appear in each others posts) but again i do like seeing how you wish to control my speech, it shows alot more about you than it does about me oh and one last observation there are millions of registered users (you should know you analyse forum users) yet the same dozen names pop up and hug and cling on to defend the mad-hatter parents of the group Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 08, 2023, 06:20:24 PM <snip> Translation: "I won't follow the rules I'm expected to abide by, but I'll continue to propose absurd rules for Bitcoin because I expect others to do what I want." Seems legit. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 06:24:18 PM firstly
i do follow the rules.. just not the ones you lot make up you say i do too many walls of text posts guess what one rule is to not split a post into multiple parts but to say it all in one post another rule says no single word single line replies. a post should have decent amount of content so yea. my rants as you call them are precisely in the rules as for other things you think are rules that im breaking.. a forum post by a user that has a side job as forum staff. making an opinion post about his personal wishes due to cries he got from your social club new recruits(newbies).. is not an official forum rule. though you have zealous mod-sister that will pretend it gave them the right to control me. its still not an official rule of the forum but hey when it was your newbie recruits that pushed him to make make that post. which your crowd then want to think is your power gain to control more.. is more of your silly game of self empowering nature of censorship.. it says more about you than me im not part of any club that has enforced any mandatory code but wait.. which dev team is your club defending.. oh right the central point of failure dev group that did have a mandatory enforced activation (and no dont play the amnesia card..again) you have been shown many times the 2017 block events, bips and code and nya agreements that pushed it through with fake side promises added but never provided once the mandatory part succeeded. and no although fake promoted (bad name calling) as a UASF it was not soft nor UA.. it was a MAHF+core code+NYA(economic node threat/assisted HARDfork) coalition attempt you were even shown the image of the flags that had a very unnatural straight first phase near vertical blue line flag.. and then a un naturally straight diagonal red incline(rejecting opposition blocks) that got to an unnatural 100% to cause the mandated activation. you know the flag event image i speak of which is backed up by block data.. blockdata by the way that immutable so even i cant edit it.. incase your next silly reply is me showing edited data/bad data last point of this post i get your game doomad you fail at a well researched rebuttal about features and flaws and bugs of certain things and certain devs. so your game is mostly to annoy me into i getting soo disrespectful with you that you then have a reason to cry about the disrespect you receive. and then hope to use the disrespect as the reason to get rid of me.. your technique is not original nor unique. its called "poking the bear" its been around before you were born and you are not succeeding in it either. the funny part is your techniques have shown a few moments that your recruits are beginning to question your narrative and methods.. more than mine. seems your more at risk of losing your recruits than the possibility of controlling my words with your games Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 06:50:35 PM I see no debunked arguments regarding the recent NFT topic The recent NFT topic, in which nevertheless I do correct him, isn't about debunked arguments. The fact that his posts get deleted (probably due to multiple reports) and he keeps re-posting the same text shows how childishly he behaves. e.g. like if someone says that the sun is made of water, you could disprove the notion by providing scientific evidence. You could also disprove the notion that dividing 1 sat into 1000 msats doesn't make the currency less scarce, but that's up to serious debate with franky. But if someone doesn't like your policies on a certain subject and you call their opinion bullshit and try to censor their voice I don't ever report his posts based on opinions. Hell, I don't even remember well the time I reported him once. i do follow the rules.. just not the ones you lot make up That's up to the people who consider your posts as pointless, uninteresting and trolling. Also, you go off-topic frequently. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: nutildah on February 08, 2023, 06:52:57 PM the way i see it this is just more meaningless social drama...
you know, silly social that can be debunked by anyone who does the research into what franky1 is ACTUALLY saying. thats right folks the main problem you can't realize is that you don't do research. me on the other hand, all i do is research... i do so much research i hardly have time to write huge walls of text on this forum , in threads where i've been asked to cease particepation , countless times... all because they fear the power of ACTUAL RESEARCH. you will not out-research me. i will research circles around you, just like franky1 does... how DARE you try to silence him? you cannot manipulate him like you do the market cap. yep i have been researching since i was in the womb and that is why i know things that you turn a blind eye to. this is because you have no clue of the basic facts of reality... you are afraid to learn so you accuse me of derailing. sorry but segwit was a hostile takeover. millisats don't exist. heck not even the entire lighting network is real... it is a figmant of the blocksize gestappo's imagination. liquid makes even less sense but its still around because you all worship at the alter of your messiah adam beck. ofcourse he has NO CLUE about what bitcoin actually is... just put your social drama aside and go do research. then you will discover how you have been misled , and finally see the light. yep. millisats. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 06:58:31 PM [...] You enjoyed every character typed while writing this, didn't you? :PTitle: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 07:10:30 PM I see no debunked arguments regarding the recent NFT topic The recent NFT topic, in which nevertheless I do correct him, isn't about debunked arguments. The fact that his posts get deleted (probably due to multiple reports) and he keeps re-posting the same text shows how childishly he behaves. ops i should be more precise. you were told to think fees were the fix.. sorry i keep thinking your words are your own and keep forgetting that you are just reading of a sales pitch sheet.. without you even bothering to even use your own mind to question what you are saying yourself. i mean come on some of the stuff you say is silly. you saying that code cant do anything and only money can(its like you are stuck in the 1900's where code was not a thing) example [...] I agree that being non-standard or not isn't the way of stopping spam, but I strongly disagree with messing around with op codes, hardening consensus rules which locks out potentially useful functionalities to get rid of this particular batch of NFT mania, which will overtime find their way in otherwise. Bitcoin is incentive based, and pro-freedom network. If transaction fee can't discourage a spammer, no thing can. that is not debunk.. thats me laughing at you for you not understanding that it is CODE that creates rules and code that can change broken code. not money e.g. like if someone says that the sun is made of water, you could disprove the notion by providing scientific evidence. You could also disprove the notion that dividing 1 sat into 1000 msats doesn't make the currency less scarce, but that's up to serious debate with franky. bitcoin at HARD REAL data level is measured in sats on the blockchain. the immutible blockchain lets show you what 6.25btc looks like in binary(on the blockchain of real data and ruled amount) 100101010000001011111001000000 now that real data.. is then computed in a susers software to be human represented as 6.25000000btc now i want blackhat to realuse that at smallest unit of account(sat) if that unit change from 625000000units to 625000000000units guess what it would look like in binary 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 meaning the new coinbase of more "decimals" would have more binary numbers meaning it then impacts how many halving events occur (because removing the right side by 1 bit is a halving of amount, meaning longer bit length=more halvings) and also this new representation of 6.26btc 1001000110000100111001110010101000000000 makes the old reputation appear as no longer 6.25btc but devalued down to being 0.00625 due to the /100 blackhat wants as for the "supply" turning the existing old "8decimal" block data of binary value. from 19m coins into 19kcoins of new style meaning it changes total supply into less then 2mill total once all halvings complete but hey.. when i told blackhat about that.. he did not respond with a successful debunk. he just realised he made a massive misjudgement and just didnt respond to that topic nope he did not discuss any binary or hex or decimal debate that would prove his opinion. But if someone doesn't like your policies on a certain subject and you call their opinion bullshit and try to censor their voice I don't ever report his posts based on opinions. Hell, I don't even remember well the time I reported him once. yet this topic here is blackhat that wanted me banned.. hmm going from no reporting.. to sudden wanting me banned.. seems extreme leap to make in one shot but it is funny to see the normal "i dont remember" defence to avoid stating something of truth.. (nice try.. but not subtle enough) angelo. you probably had more skill in the scrap metal business than you do in PR Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 07:14:54 PM you have not. responding does not equal debunking. you just thint fees is the only way to fix code bugs (facepalm) What is happening is not a code bug. It's a spam attack. Ultimately, a feature. that is not debunk.. thats me laughing at you for you not understanding that it is CODE that creates rules and code that can change broken code. There is no broken code. not money bitcoin at HARD REAL data level is measured in sats on the blockchain. the immutible blockchain Lol, I'm not even touching this subject for the billionth time.but it is funny to see the normal "i dont remember" defence to avoid stating something of truth.. (nice try.. but not subtle enough) Maybe I reported you once. I don't remember. You're not interesting. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 07:21:35 PM seems for me to be such a nobody of no interest. you lot spend most days trying to control me
and you never touched the block data debates once.. as soon as i show you block data/binary data. (segwit activation method... bockflags, .. coin value amounts stored in blockdata)and I ask you lot to do the same.. you lot shy away and play forgetful but just say you wont answer it due to [excuse] i still await your debunks that are not just posts "franky is wrong because here is a quote of a buddy saying he is wrong, who is quoting another buddy who says he is wrong" as your only evidence come on.. here is your prime chance to highlight your wins.. show it the stage is open.. come on, show me the big debunks you speak of come on the big network affecting debunks.. where my suggestions would negatively affect bitcoin more then the crap stuff you lot promote .. or will i just get grammar nazi knitpicks of silly things that are meaningless to the context of the debate come on. the stage is open. the mic is on. the speakers are on full. the stage spotlights are positioned right to the stage. ready for your big reveal...... dont be shy now if you ever had a really big debunk proof im sure you were itching at the neck wanting to show it. and bookmarking it for prosperity.. so come on.. this is your moment come on there must be one.. and no dont play the amnesia card Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 08, 2023, 07:30:31 PM and you never touched the block data debates once.. as soon as i show you block data/binary data. (segwit activation method... bockflags, .. coin value amounts stored in blockdata)and I ask you lot to do the same.. you lot shy away and play forgetful but just say you wont answer it due to [excuse] Pardon me for that, but I really can't stand reading bad English. I'm neither British so it's just unbearable to have long talk with you. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 07:33:29 PM nice grammar excuse
but my english is real english you can truly say you are great at english if you can understand this "oi ewe, put down the dog n bone n put yer big knickers on" and this "a'ight me ol mucker, ow's yer ma" Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: JayJuanGee on February 08, 2023, 08:15:08 PM firstly you want to control how i talk.. emphasis control then you want to control what i talk about emphasis control then you want to control where i talk emphasis control then you want to control if i should be allowed to talk emphasis control hmm very revealing. it says more about you then me i have always been clear. this is an open discussion forum.. and i am frank as for this forum and the reason i reposted a certain post content in the last couple days.. its more so that if you look at the technical discussion topic. there is alot of hype promoting of letting NFT continue. but any real talk of REAL fixes get deleted, removed and not talked about.. just look at the lack of discussion of a real fix.. yet we know the ordinals (buzzword of a type of NFT on bitcoin) are a problem of bloat and other issues.. its not childish to be trying to talk about solutions, nor about critiquing the causes, nor childish to mention what the wider community should be reviewing and pointing their eyes towards causes and real fixes its childish to have a man child with abilities to delete proposals, solutions and fixes to then has his firends pretend there is no fix and instead promote getting people to make bitcoin a premium expense system to make it unappealing to use as a payment system achow is abusing his mod privilege he is mod of too many things. he wants a central point of failure (core) to only be reviewed internally(centrally) where it is moderated by core, and there is no critique or negative words said beyond 'Nack' yep in recent months he wants to add a mod layer to github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26890) adding more self serving power, where any critical negative comments are removed. and instead any negative stuff is pretty much only allowed if its fits into a small criteria of formatting to make it difficult to critique a flaw/developer. heck he even wants to change the ACK Nack scheme.. he and a certain fews dont believe in the concept of decentralisation.. and do not believe in independent validation, review, scrutiny, critique. where instead the very same core maintainers of every part of bitcoin discussion moderation teams and yet you want them to have free reign to say and do as they please because "free speech" while then censoring out anything that goes against the core way. maybe look outslde your childish view of things and think more outside your playground I have seen that a lot of your posts have been allowed to stay.. and of course, it could be problematic to be reposting items that have been deleted - unless they were deleted for being off-topic, so you remove them to a thread in which they are "on-topic".. and perhaps it would be acceptable for you to post a link to another thread in a topic in which you believe that your post is relevant, but it had already been deleted for possibly being off-topic... I am not sure.. I don't really want your voice to be snuffed out, even though sometimes I get confused about your points and then realize that maybe you were just talking gobbledy-gook.. but other times you seem to raise points that others had not been willing to raise or you raise it from an angle that had not been presented, and those kinds of presentations can be helpful to other members, even if some of us might not agree with some of your facts, logic and/or conclusions reached. Isn't he the only recognizable opposition in this forum? In terms of mental health, sure.Hearing the opposition is always good because it helps to improve. But hearing the same bullshit, for millionth times repeated and debunked arguments does not. Also, not being civil does not. I don't see anything wrong with his deleted posts other than a dictatorial moderation policy in those dangerous waters ( boards ). Dictatorial? Buddy, a forum board has rules. And those rules are better to be enforced. This forum, while far from perfect moderation, does fit in this category as well. franky1 just feels like the rules aren't proper, or that the moderators abuse their power; apparently, only to him. It seems to me that the forum is pretty liberal in terms of allowing posts to stand, and sure sometimes if posts are deleted it might be good to give a reason, especially if the post is off topic and might be raised in some other area.. but I do see that sometimes franky is bringing up bullshit political criticisms that end up fogging up technical ideas and even perverting facts, so sometimes in those kinds of cases, it should already be clear that there might not be any appropriate place for such posts.. except maybe a thread that allows franky to fantasize about whatever world that he wishes to exist with franky logic, franky facts and/or franky conclusions.. and surely it seems that the LoyceV thread had allowed for some of that.. and I am not sure if there might be some other threads in which some of the contents of the franky posts could be allowed to stand.... but I do agree with the idea that it is against the rules to post off topic, and some deviations are allowed, so it can be a slippery slope, sometimes to figure out if something should have been "on-topic" or not. as for debunking me.. with actual hard data of something rally hard and provable in actual code or blockdata.. i doubt it all your chums ever do is say i been debunked by quoting another social post of a chum of yours saying i was debunked where their source is another chums saying i was debunked.. or where you think you got a win becasue of grammar mistakes Sometimes the burden for "debunking" is on you to prove your case, and no one needs to debunk you. If you are trying to overcome the status quo, then you have the burden of convincing folks of the strength of your facts, the validity of your logic and the soundness of your conclusions, and so if you cannot reach your burdens, then the burden does not shift to the status quo to "debunk" you. Furthermore, if you merely just continue to present the same (or very similar) facts, logic, arguments and/or conclusions over and over, that does not necessarily make your arguments stronger and it does not necessarily shift the burden over to the status quo to "debunk" your claims. I see no debunked arguments regarding the recent NFT topic The recent NFT topic, in which nevertheless I do correct him, isn't about debunked arguments. The fact that his posts get deleted (probably due to multiple reports) and he keeps re-posting the same text shows how childishly he behaves. I believe that I have not seen the relevant threads on the NFT topic, and I imagine that you are referring to ordinals in terms of some of the software implementations that were run by Casey Rodarmor or whatever the recent hub bub of NFTs on bitcoin is called. So far, I am not against those or think that any kind of action needs to be taken or that it is an attack vector on bitcoin, but I see that there have been several prominent bitcoin members who have been against them.. such as Adam Back. .and maybe some others, so maybe I am thinking that Franky might be for ordinals.. I am not sure.. .. but overall I think that the topic has been raising quite a bit of disagreement about whether it is a problem and whether anything should be done or can be done in such a way that does not end up being problematic for bitcoin. .for example, if there were some kind of a software fix, that in itself might be considered an attack on bitcoin... or maybe result in a hardfork rather than a softfork.. whatever, maybe I am getting off topic, because we are supposed to be talking about how bad franky is, no? Let me get back on topic.... Franky.. you suck.. hahahahhaha not all of the time, but a decently large amount of the time. :D :D :D :D Accordingly, it seems to me that you also seem to have misinterpreted who was claiming who to be a dictator.. you said that the mods were dictators *such as achow..., and then some folks rebutted you by saying that they were not dictators, then you said that members were calling you a dictator.. .. whatever, seems like you were twisting and/or misinterpreting the ideas on that issue that you raised in the first place... although I can see why some folks might want to call you a dictator if you are continuing to push the same ideas over and over without really adding anything to points that you might have already been made or if you are cluttering topics with your posts and claiming that they are on topic, when they are merely repetitions of the same point over and over.. which is a kind of dictatorship through cluttering.. if there were to be such a thing that could exist? i do so much research i hardly have time to write huge walls of text on this forum , in threads where i've been asked to cease particepation , countless times... all because they fear the power of ACTUAL RESEARCH. Oh gawd.. ::) ::) ::) aren't you the greatest thing since sliced bread. :D :D :D :D :D you will not out-research me. i will research circles around you, just like franky1 does... how DARE you try to silence him? you cannot manipulate him like you do the market cap. yep i have been researching since i was in the womb and that is why i know things that you turn a blind eye to. this is because you have no clue of the basic facts of reality... you are afraid to learn so you accuse me of derailing. sorry but segwit was a hostile takeover. millisats don't exist. heck not even the entire lighting network is real... it is a figmant of the blocksize gestappo's imagination. liquid makes even less sense but its still around because you all worship at the alter of your messiah adam beck.** ofcourse he has NO CLUE about what bitcoin actually is... just put your social drama aside and go do research. then you will discover how you have been misled , and finally see the light. yep. millisats. For some reason, I find this last portion of your post quite humorous.. even though I am not really sure what it means. Dummy me. Probably I have not researched enough in order to understand the innuendos contained therein. **By the way, based on your above spelling of "Beck," you might be getting Adam Back mixed up with Jeff Beck. They have both been famous, but largely for different reasons... #justsaying. you have not. responding does not equal debunking. you just thint fees is the only way to fix code bugs (facepalm) What is happening is not a code bug. It's a spam attack. Ultimately, a feature. that is not debunk.. thats me laughing at you for you not understanding that it is CODE that creates rules and code that can change broken code. There is no broken code. not money bitcoin at HARD REAL data level is measured in sats on the blockchain. the immutible blockchain Lol, I'm not even touching this subject for the billionth time.but it is funny to see the normal "i dont remember" defence to avoid stating something of truth.. (nice try.. but not subtle enough) Maybe I reported you once. I don't remember. You're not interesting. Ok... maybe this helps me (without having to "research too much") to appreciate where franky1 might stand/sit in regards to the recently frequently discussed NFT/ordinals on bitcoin topic.. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 08, 2023, 10:46:24 PM @JJG
firstly i am not for ordinals i even provided a easy solution that does work because the core devs done a similar practice in the past which set precedent that its possible and does not involved re-orging the blockchain and no fees are not the solution.. asking everyone to just pay more is meaningless. as pools can add a ordinal/nft in their own blocktemplate and the fee they pay goes to themselves. thus no cost, no loss. thus fees wont stop it if it costs a pool nothing to add it secondly using fee as political power is surprising the other groups solution. strangely they used to hate bloat in blocks and wanted a fee "freemarket".. now they want bloat and want a political fee system (facepalm) my stance has always been bitcoin development on the bitcoin network. where bitcoins exist. to allow more bitcoin payment transactions per block.. its never been about more wasted metadata script nft bloat or crap data bloat. its more payment transaction count utility on the bitcoin network. progressively, not large leaps (to counter most of the stupid insinuations other people think are the only options going forward) seems they change their stance/opinions to fit the whims of whatever sponsor they meet as for me providing proof take the segwit debate. even the core devs admit it was done the way i keep saying it was. they are now proud of it too.. . thus i dont see why the madhatter clan are trying to set a different narrative.. (theirs: there was no split there was no fork there was no controversy, it was all soft and everyone wanted it) i have shown them even the block data, the bips and the codebase. the mandatory stuff he block rejections the unnatural votes. they have seen it many times. thus when they try to say silly stuff to try to change history.. after 3 months of chill by them.. they play dumb and forgetful.. they keep then asking me for proof even though they know the answer. they just want me to waste my time showing them the data again. then cry that im the one trying to keep talking about it but they never show their proofs of their narratives. apart from confirmation bias social quotes from things like other forum people or twitter. so yea i tell them to stop wasting time do some research and come back when they provide proof of their claims because proof of my claims has been provided many many many times and is easily available heck even lead maintain Wlad admits core was branded core as a name to be the center of information, development and the reference client (central point of failure) and also on his exist he again admits about he core being central point of failure yet the madhatter clan are trying to pretend something else. here is the thing. when i do detail responses of technical stuff including links. most of those posts get deleted. or get told its too technical and to instead ELI-5 it. or that i am wrong becasue im just rambling some nonsense they cannot understand.. or left in history from years prior. where by new mentions ifthe topic is questioned again.. these new resppnses then get deleted.. which then leaves gaps in the conversation where it looks like i have not mentioned certain things. which some use as pretending that im confusing people by being vague or not complete. i then re write a brief dumbed down version but try to include links then i dumb it down a bit more and ask people to do their own research then i dumb it down more and then get accused of not knowing anything becasue im not scientific enough.. (facepalm) then i get peed off that the messages are not even given the effort to be read by a mod to even check if the content is valid or not.. to see if it meets the rules. so i do quick blasts of messages which some stick. which is where the confusing small scope snippet bits come in where some people dont get the whole context. because i had to limit the context or the context got deleted these small brief (non walls of text) messages is where i have not spoonfed all the detail but request people to do some research so that i cant be blamed for me spoonfeeding them bad information or being a dictator (EG if i responded in 5 messages between 5 other peoples messages and only posts 2 and 4 were kept. it looks messy) the information exists.. even with just a google search and 30 second of time .. yet certain people would rather spend hours making excuses to avoid simple research or get my posts deleted rather than face the truth that opposes whatever team/company/agenda they are defending and yes. i have been called synonyms and analogies and comparisons to dictator many times by blackhatter and his work husband doomad. which is why when it comes to anyone being a dictator being mentioned in a topic where its obviously subtle leading to starting a reail accusation related to me being one in further posts it happens so often you can spot the sliding in of a certain topic to then start a new argument about it.. . i can see the inferences that are ready to be made because its the same game of subtly directing a discussion into dictator finger pointing session. whereby the usual crowd LOVE to then point the finger at me as deflection. so i sometimes beat them to the punch.. again it looks messy. but when they sing the same songs of [subtle buzzword insertion] pre-empting the obvious next phase by calling me the [bussword]. i prefer to skip a few of their chest beats of their singing sessions and just get to the conclusion of their next game. yes it looks messy but with all the post deletes and such there is no point wasting time playing their game in sync and step by step. i might aswell act like half my messages will be deleted anyway and just get to the conclusion as for if my post was ontopic or not about the mass of deletes today. it was about NFT on bitcoin (to which ordinals is the brand name or a type of NFT, which is on bitcoin). and where people were asking about solutions to it. which all my deleted responses in recent days were ontopic and offered a solution yea achow does not read the posts to check if the rules were met.. he just deletes on sight, if a post is made by my name its deleted.. deleted precisely for that reason "franky made it" funny thing is achow is recently(couple months) on a massive power grab. wanting to add extra hierarchy levels of moderation everywhere.. even on github where by he is writing the rule book and making the internal merge privilege devs the mods.. meaning a more closed door circle jerking by the Dev empire.. seems he does not like outside/independent review, scrutiny, critique. he wants a cultish clubhouse of ass kissing ACKers. of the same 3 sponsoring companies (brinks/ chain code labs/blockstream) all pushing for the same roadmap. thus no defiance but dare i say that. oops just did seems most of the dozen brethren of the mad hatter defence league have made an appearance in this topic in recent days.. just maybe 2-3 more have yet to chime in to defend their buddies. but yes its the usual crowd im having to spot time and time again.. (no surprise) Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: philipma1957 on February 08, 2023, 11:38:03 PM ( v sarcasm v ) You have a very unfriendly discussion style. Do you enjoy attacking anyone who talks to you?please sir can i have the kings permission to use references that are analogies or synonyms of dictatorial, such as dictate, dictator, totalitarian, oppressor. ( ^ sarcasm ^) to be frank about frank he is not rude to me but in general we agree on LN being a possible threat to BTC. On the topic of NFT and ordinals hurting btc I tend to see some of the threats they could be but as a long time miner I see them clogging blocks and helping miners. Its funny the frank thinks ln a block de bloat and NFT/ ordinals are both bad. In a way I kind of think of NFT/ordinals as a sophisticated way to clog the chain to help miners and to counter balance the damage done by LN network and fees for miners. So In my half assed opinion since frank does not like LN in theory he should like NFT's and ordinals. I in this particular case I am asking frank do you think my idea of not/ordinal neutralizing LN action is wrong? If so why? As anyone can see I am not against frank but am interested in what he thinks. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: JayJuanGee on February 09, 2023, 02:42:47 AM @JJG firstly i am not for ordinals i even provided a easy solution that does work because the core devs done a similar practice in the past which set precedent that its possible and does not involved re-orging the blockchain and no fees are not the solution.. asking everyone to just pay more is meaningless. as pools can add a ordinal/nft in their own blocktemplate and the fee they pay goes to themselves. thus no cost, no loss. thus fees wont stop it if it costs a pool nothing to add it secondly using fee as political power is surprising the other groups solution. strangely they used to hate bloat in blocks and wanted a fee "freemarket".. now they want bloat and want a political fee system (facepalm) my stance has always been bitcoin development on the bitcoin network. where bitcoins exist. to allow more bitcoin payment transactions per block.. its never been about more wasted metadata script nft bloat or crap data bloat. its more payment transaction count utility on the bitcoin network. progressively, not large leaps (to counter most of the stupid insinuations other people think are the only options going forward) seems they change their stance/opinions to fit the whims of whatever sponsor they meet as for me providing proof take the segwit debate. even the core devs admit it was done the way i keep saying it was. they are now proud of it too.. . thus i dont see why the madhatter clan are trying to set a different narrative.. (theirs: there was no split there was no fork there was no controversy, it was all soft and everyone wanted it) i have shown them even the block data, the bips and the codebase. the mandatory stuff he block rejections the unnatural votes. they have seen it many times. thus when they try to say silly stuff to try to change history.. after 3 months of chill by them.. they play dumb and forgetful.. they keep then asking me for proof even though they know the answer. they just want me to waste my time showing them the data again. then cry that im the one trying to keep talking about it but they never show their proofs of their narratives. apart from confirmation bias social quotes from things like other forum people or twitter. so yea i tell them to stop wasting time do some research and come back when they provide proof of their claims because proof of my claims has been provided many many many times and is easily available heck even lead maintain Wlad admits core was branded core as a name to be the center of information, development and the reference client (central point of failure) and also on his exist he again admits about he core being central point of failure yet the madhatter clan are trying to pretend something else. here is the thing. when i do detail responses of technical stuff including links. most of those posts get deleted. or get told its too technical and to instead ELI-5 it. or that i am wrong becasue im just rambling some nonsense they cannot understand.. or left in history from years prior. where by new mentions ifthe topic is questioned again.. these new resppnses then get deleted.. which then leaves gaps in the conversation where it looks like i have not mentioned certain things. which some use as pretending that im confusing people by being vague or not complete. i then re write a brief dumbed down version but try to include links then i dumb it down a bit more and ask people to do their own research then i dumb it down more and then get accused of not knowing anything becasue im not scientific enough.. (facepalm) then i get peed off that the messages are not even given the effort to be read by a mod to even check if the content is valid or not.. to see if it meets the rules. so i do quick blasts of messages which some stick. which is where the confusing small scope snippet bits come in where some people dont get the whole context. because i had to limit the context or the context got deleted these small brief (non walls of text) messages is where i have not spoonfed all the detail but request people to do some research so that i cant be blamed for me spoonfeeding them bad information or being a dictator (EG if i responded in 5 messages between 5 other peoples messages and only posts 2 and 4 were kept. it looks messy) the information exists.. even with just a google search and 30 second of time .. yet certain people would rather spend hours making excuses to avoid simple research or get my posts deleted rather than face the truth that opposes whatever team/company/agenda they are defending and yes. i have been called synonyms and analogies and comparisons to dictator many times by blackhatter and his work husband doomad. which is why when it comes to anyone being a dictator being mentioned in a topic where its obviously subtle leading to starting a reail accusation related to me being one in further posts it happens so often you can spot the sliding in of a certain topic to then start a new argument about it.. . i can see the inferences that are ready to be made because its the same game of subtly directing a discussion into dictator finger pointing session. whereby the usual crowd LOVE to then point the finger at me as deflection. so i sometimes beat them to the punch.. again it looks messy. but when they sing the same songs of [subtle buzzword insertion] pre-empting the obvious next phase by calling me the [bussword]. i prefer to skip a few of their chest beats of their singing sessions and just get to the conclusion of their next game. yes it looks messy but with all the post deletes and such there is no point wasting time playing their game in sync and step by step. i might aswell act like half my messages will be deleted anyway and just get to the conclusion as for if my post was ontopic or not about the mass of deletes today. it was about NFT on bitcoin (to which ordinals is the brand name or a type of NFT, which is on bitcoin). and where people were asking about solutions to it. which all my deleted responses in recent days were ontopic and offered a solution yea achow does not read the posts to check if the rules were met.. he just deletes on sight, if a post is made by my name its deleted.. deleted precisely for that reason "franky made it" funny thing is achow is recently(couple months) on a massive power grab. wanting to add extra hierarchy levels of moderation everywhere.. even on github where by he is writing the rule book and making the internal merge privilege devs the mods.. meaning a more closed door circle jerking by the Dev empire.. seems he does not like outside/independent review, scrutiny, critique. he wants a cultish clubhouse of ass kissing ACKers. of the same 3 sponsoring companies (brinks/ chain code labs/blockstream) all pushing for the same roadmap. thus no defiance but dare i say that. oops just did seems most of the dozen brethren of the mad hatter defence league have made an appearance in this topic in recent days.. just maybe 2-3 more have yet to chime in to defend their buddies. but yes its the usual crowd im having to spot time and time again.. (no surprise) I appreciate your various answers here Frank, but it seems to me that you are even more guilty than me in terms of providing walls of text that tend to devolve into a bunch of so fucking what? What's are the points that you are making and why are such points relevant to make right now and in the way that you made such points? To the extent that I even understand what you are saying, let me see if I can explain my point of view a bit MOAR better. To me, it hardly makes any difference if you are making some arguments in this thread to describe the various ways that you are correct about your perspective in bitcoin and the various ways that it is broken or that there are colluding people who are not allowing your messages to resonate.. whether through Achow, Gmaxwell or combination of other forum members (whether influential and important members or not), and it also likely does not mean much of anything if you are absolutely correct in your views and the way that you present facts, logic and you come to the most correct conclusions, because you have to persuade the right people to want to act in agreement and concert with you to make the changes that you believe are necessary in order to reach whatever the fuck might happen to be your objective, which in the end would be what? Remember the build up for segwit took place largely in 2016/2017 and some drama triggered signaling at such a level that it passed and then went through a process of getting activating. If you want to undo segwit then it likely has to go through a similar process, but the fact that it has largely been active for more than 5 years and people/companies have been building bitcoin upon it, it is likely not going to get taken out in any kind of way, except maybe some incremental changes could be made if you could achieve some kind of consensus in your view in order to motivate progress to go in the direction that you would like.. so what I am saying is the fact that you might be the smartest person and maybe you are the most correct, you have the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion to motivate others to act in terms of overturning or altering the status quo, so maybe that could be part of the explanation why so many members in this forum get pissed off at you because there seems to be some lack of practicality to be complaining about water that already flowed under the bridge, and I am not even suggesting that some of your other concerns might not be addressable, but it's not like you are going to get a bunch of people to start to agree with you and to act upon your ideas unless you are also getting them to work on your visions and/or projects to the extent that you are able to motivate others... Do you have a book coming out? or do we just need to read your various posts in order to figure out how we are supposed to act in terms of supporting your various visions, to the extent that any of us might be able to understand how we are supposed to act and that we are motivated to actually take steps in that direction. ( v sarcasm v ) You have a very unfriendly discussion style. Do you enjoy attacking anyone who talks to you?please sir can i have the kings permission to use references that are analogies or synonyms of dictatorial, such as dictate, dictator, totalitarian, oppressor. ( ^ sarcasm ^) On the topic of NFT and ordinals hurting btc I tend to see some of the threats they could be but as a long time miner I see them clogging blocks and helping miners. Its funny the frank thinks ln a block de bloat and NFT/ ordinals are both bad. In a way I kind of think of NFT/ordinals as a sophisticated way to clog the chain to help miners and to counter balance the damage done by LN network and fees for miners. So In my half assed opinion since frank does not like LN in theory he should like NFT's and ordinals. I in this particular case I am asking frank do you think my idea of not/ordinal neutralizing LN action is wrong? If so why? As anyone can see I am not against frank but am interested in what he thinks. I don't really agree with some of your views Philip in regards to the extent to which these various NFT/ordinals make much if any difference to mining, even though surely there can be ways that they end up taking up block space because some people might get excited to take up space on the blockchain to get their various kinds of messages to go through and to be permanently attached to some UTXOs... ..but I do appreciate some of your ideas in regards to how it seems that franks various positions are contradictory in their nature - especially if frank is opposing various ways that bitcoin transactions have been gravitating to layers outside of the base layer of bitcoin and that the NFT/ordinal scripts promulgated/generated/discovered by Casey Rodarmor do seem to attempt to use bitcoin's base layer rather than going to outside layers.. So yeah it seems that Franky's position is somewhat contradictory - and maybe Franky is suggesting that some of the various software changes that involve both segwit and taproot make these kinds of ordinal/NFTs easier to accomplish so in that sense, he is trying to use such impacts of the software changes as a way to whine about some of those earlier software changes should not have been made in the first place.. so therefore he does not like it.. And, probably I am stating Franky's position incorrectly.. even though, I still did appreciate your (Philip) way of framing the seeming contradictions in Franky's positions as you currently understand them to be. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: digaran on February 09, 2023, 06:19:30 AM When franky says they delete his posts even if it's on topic, he doesn't lie, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5438853.msg61731503#msg61731503
That's really awkward seeing someone talking with a ghost on a topic. Lol. At this point I no longer believe that moderator(s) from that part of the woods are political dictators, I believe this is something personal and would suggest franky1 to avoid that haunted part of the forum, as there are 2 angry ghosts just waiting for you. Maybe you should try other boards to test a theory, if you got censored again where achow and gmaxwell hold no power, we should all reconsider using this forum. (They will not censor you as long as you don't break any rules), ( which you won't ). I have been a member since 2016, never met them, however I do get a positive vibe from Gmaxwell, not so much from achow.(different minds vibrate on different frequencies). Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 09, 2023, 08:00:26 AM to be frank about frank he is not rude to me but in general we agree on LN being a possible threat to BTC. I've never seen you touching sensitive subjects, though. Lightning, SegWit, Bitcoin developers, 8 decimals. These are some of the most unproductive conversations you will ever have with franky. When franky says they delete his posts even if it's on topic, he doesn't lie, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5438853.msg61731503#msg61731503 When a moderator says he's banned from the Dev & Tech board (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5192937.0), he doesn't lie either. Even though I'm still unsure of two things;
That's really awkward seeing someone talking with a ghost on a topic. Lol. I removed my post in that topic, it should be better now.Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 09, 2023, 09:55:31 AM At this point I no longer believe that moderator(s) from that part of the woods are political dictators, I believe this is something personal and would suggest franky1 to avoid that haunted part of the forum, as there are 2 angry ghosts just waiting for you. The whole idea is that he is supposed to avoid posting in that part of the forum. That's why his posts are being deleted. I don't believe it is personal in regards of the mods' decision. If franky1 were capable of only posting his beliefs in relevant threads and not posting a bunch of rabid conspiracy theories and outright lies, generally dominating the thread and diverting it off-course, his engagement would likely still be welcome in that subforum. But he is incapable of seeing reason. Every single topic has to devolve and distort into going over the same old tired repeats about franky1's fixation with the scaling debate and his hatred for what Bitcoin is today. He can't help himself. He's stuck in the past, desperately clinging onto a fantasy. It's tedious and tiresome. He won't rest until every last topic is derailed to focus on his obsession. Relentless and unyielding. It's just not conducive to having an environment where everyone can contribute and be heard. He's simply too noisy, disruptive and downright obnoxious for any other voices to be heard. //EDIT: and his reaction below embodies this precisely. Anyone rational, if this topic were about them, might pause to think "Oh, maybe I should dial it down a few notches. Maybe I am taking things too far". But no, franky1 just wants to escalate and point fingers. He can't conceive that his conduct might be an issue for others. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 09, 2023, 11:40:53 AM doomad you know exactly why im obnoxious to you and your dozen or so recruits.. dont pretend that it applies to all millions of bitcoiners/many thousands on this forum
however YOU are the one that wants to control my personality YOU are the one that wants to control my words YOU are the one that wants to control how i say my words YOU are the one that wants to control where i say my words YOU are the one that wants to control who sees my words YOU want to control what your own recruits see. YOU tell your recruits not to do research and take your narrative for granted it says alot more about you then it says about me as for me talking about certain bitcoin things.. yep its a bitcoin thing.. i am not talking about orange juice (love that stuff) in every post even now with the whole NFT/ordinals, which are only possible due to a flaw in the past. (oops you called permissionless allowance deadweight bloat a "feature"(facepalm)) even as far back as how the anyonecanspend opcode got changed to be treated as a softening of the consensus rules about 'permissionless' (default:isvalid verification bypass) treatment of transactions that use that opcode and subset opcodes of similar softness. have ramifications that are now being seen today as a sub-sub class of opcode misuse of the same scheme. so it does have relevance as do the stuff in between you dont want certain provable facts of the past mentioned because then it reveals real fixes that can be done now and in the future by their relevance to changes done in the past Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Out of PATIENCE on February 10, 2023, 06:18:32 PM franky1 can be annoying and sometimes misguided but I'm rooting for his freedom and against censorship. a ban request? wow, so many others should be facing a ban first.
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: JayJuanGee on February 10, 2023, 07:42:57 PM franky1 can be annoying and sometimes misguided but I'm rooting for his freedom and against censorship. a ban request? wow, so many others should be facing a ban first. The concepts of freedom and censorship need some context, so when you reference those ideas without explanation, it is not easy to know what you are talking about. I will concede that maybe some members have gone overboard in their making a request that Franky should be banned - nonetheless, the idea of getting banned and/or punished in various ways happens to be within the basket of tools available to admins/mods in order to figure out if a member had gone overboard in his/her conduct, and so discussion of the potential of his getting banned or requesting that he gets banned seems to be a fair talking point, as long as the prompting of the discussion has some kind of legitimate basis that goes beyond personal feelings or ad hominem attacks. Of course, if any of us have seen Franky's posts and the ways that he interacts with other members and with various topics, we likely would come to differing conclusions regarding whether we believe that banning is warranted, some other kind of punishment or to conclude that Franky had not crossed over any lines that justify the punishments that some members believe that he deserves. I have seen quite a few of Franky's posts, I have interacted with him in various threads, and sometimes I have found the contents of his posts to be frustrating for me to figure out, yet I hardly claim to be any kind of Franky expert, and surely if I was told that I had to be the deciding vote in regards to some spectrum of punishments that were being considered for Franky, then surely, I would feel that I would have to mull through the details of various alleged offensive conduct more closely, so sometimes it is much easier to take one side or the other when you are not really having to make the decision, and perhaps part of the reason that Franky continues to be allowed to post is that there is quite a bit of freedom that already exists in this forum in order to allow some of the sometimes extreme posts.. and surely, sometimes it might be easier.. or more palatable to merely delete some of his posts rather than to completely ban or suspend him, even when it does seem that he is breaking already well-communicated forum rules when he posts in sections in which he had already clearly been told that he was banned from posting within those sections. Another possibility could be that a ban from certain parts of the forum might seem as if it is a permanent ban, but if there is a period of compliance and seeming rehabilitation (send Franky to re-education school while he is kicking and screaming the whole time.. hahahahahaha), then perhaps a "permanent" ban might end up being reduced to something in which he would be allowed to return on a "trial basis.".. ... and yeah, I would not necessarily hold my breath, but I would also never say never when we have people who exercise discretion in various ways and sometimes they change their minds in regards to certain topics... including decisions that they made at earlier times based on earlier facts and circumstances that might no longer be relevant.. or at least less relevant. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 13, 2023, 10:04:52 PM firstly i am not here to spoonfeed kids
i choose who i want to talk to and help and i choose who i see screaming out mistakes which i choose to correct. when kids start demanding i tell them things in certain ways and link them and then they tell me how i should talk and respond and what topics i should talk about and what topics ii should not and how i shout kiss the ring and treat them like kings .. um no thanks and tell me to not speak native english but instead speak google translate compliant english. .. um no thanks i am not their employee or slave all their cries says more about them than me their goal is that they want to shut me up. and they do it by annoying me and insulting me then spinning around afterwards and turning themselves into victims so they can cry to moderators maybe they should get on with their lives and do their own research and just stop being idiots that cry when they dont get their feed yes i am not mr nice guy(i used to be). but when there are a dozen idiots playing cry baby screaming my name. im not going to be mr happy so maybe they should just stop poking the bear and then crying to mommy when they get bit oh and one last thing if they dont understand consensus (consent) where they think bitcoin should be permissionless.. and i then use an adult analogy.. that: suggesting when a group of girls practising non-consent=NO . yet a group of guys want the girls to live under a softer regime where abstinence is YES by default(facepalm) and pretend there is no consent system(facepalm).. and should allow some guy to slip in his co** whether they abstain or dont give consent.. (co**=code) should have been a big enough nudge for their minds to interpret how their mindset is wrong by their (wrong)thinking that non-consent, no permission, abstinence is not a good way to live life in a community that actually did and should use principles of unity of following principles of consent.. instead of taking that life lesson.. they went screaming on a rampage of crying to moderators and also putting negative feedback on the trust rating. that i used an adult concept they still failed to understand. its time they grew up get on with your lives i am not interested in joining your religion which requires me to be a boyscout choir boy that has to get on my knees and ass-kiss i am independent and will say whats on my mind, my opinions and stuff i have researched its a discussion forum not a bible, not a scholars white paper, not a legal document oh and if people have more browser bookmarks/favourites related to forum statistics like DT rating and who deleted whos posts and merit awards, and gets alerts/notifications/alamr bells ringing about posts deleted.. and such.. but you dont have bookmarks about block explorers and tx mempool stats.. utxo data and such.. then that shows you are more interested in the social drama than bitcoin(you know who you are) Title: Re: Sanity request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 13, 2023, 10:51:29 PM oh and one last thing if they dont understand consensus (consent) where hey think bitcoin should be permissionless.. and i use an adult analogy.. that: suggesting when a group of girls practising non-consent=no . yet a group of guys want the girls to live under a softer regime where abstinence is YES by default(safepalm) and pretend there is no consent system.. and should allow some guy to slip in his co** whether they abstain or dont give consent.. (co**=code) should have been a big enough nudge for their minds to interpret how their mindset is wrong by their (wrong)thinking that non-consent, no permission, abstinence is not a good way to live life in a community that actually did and should use principles of unity of following principles of consent.. Putting aside the fact that comparing code to an act of sexual assault is repugnant and you're clearly some sort of sociopath, it's still a deeply flawed analogy. Softforks are opt-in. And at any point someone can opt out again by downgrading their client to an older version. That means all the people running the softfork code have given consent. They don't need your consent because you are choosing not to be involved in the thing they have consented to do. Therefore, it's none of your business what they do. Do what you want in your own bedroom (node). Other people can do what they want in theirs. Your complaint is effectively that no one should be allowed to do anything without your explicit permission. And yet you deny being an authoritarian. ::) On top of that, you still can't provide any code that would prevent future softforks. For all your screeching about "social dramas", you are the one who wants everyone to commit to a social contract where they promise not to code softforks. Is that really the best you can come up with? It's pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Completely unworkable. Please stop telling us we're the ones who don't understand Bitcoin when your ideas are this utterly farcical. You just look foolish. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 14, 2023, 01:22:30 AM doomad
its time for you to grow up. make one decision and stick with it, for your benefit A. im a totalitarian dictator that has code causing everyone to be my slave B. im irrelevant, cant change anything myself and have not changed anything and so you are wasting your life crying about me.. so you can put me on ignore and move on with your life.. choose wisely and stick with it and realise my footnote that appears below my every post has not changed its MY OPINION and people should do their own research i am not the one telling people how to talk or about what categories of a forum they should be limited to or how they should only talk in the queens english then think about who is showing all the dictatorial signs of control pretending they are part of some elitist monarchy that want to control and dictate what they approve of and how others should get out the community if they dont agree with ... YOU you only think with the mindset of cult recruitment thinking if they do not meet your application standard they should get out of bitcoin so choose: A. im a totalitarian dictator that has code causing everyone to be my slave B. im irrelevant and move on with your life i on the other hand will continue to just speak like a commoner. and do as i want becasue its what i want. Title: Re: Sanity request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 14, 2023, 07:30:50 PM doomad its time for you to grow up. make one decision and stick with it, for your benefit A. im a totalitarian dictator that has code causing everyone to be my slave B. im irrelevant, cant change anything myself and have not changed anything and so you are wasting your life crying about me.. so you can put me on ignore and move on with your life.. choose wisely and stick with it First off, code doesn't enslave people. If you offered up some new code, that would give people a choice (freedom = good). You aren't giving people choice, you are presenting a list of demands (servitude = bad, the opposite of freedom). If you still can't understand why your outlook is entirely ass-backwards, maybe you need to do more research on the matter. ::) As for what you are, I think I summed it up pretty succinctly in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5423213.msg61746339#msg61746339): He has all the hallmarks of a successful cult leader, if it weren't for that fact that hardly anyone listens to him. ::) You'd be dangerous if anyone drank your Kool-Aid. Which is why I'll never ignore you. If you're going to present ridiculous arguments in an attempt to sway impressionable newbies to your perverted cause of social contracts for what can or can't be coded, I'm going to be there to set the record straight and point out all your flawed reasoning. If you don't like it, come up with better arguments. What were you going to propose next? A social contract where users agree not to double spend? That's no less absurd than what you're asking for Devs to agree to. You're like the blockchain equivalent of an Incel. Preaching toxic hate, bitter and resentful, lashing out at the world because you can't get what you want. You honestly believe your hate is justified. Some easily-misled people are taken in by that kind of brazen audacity, in the same way some people are drawn to loudmouth-human-garbage like Andrew Tate, Alex Jones, Donald Trump, et al. And that's precisely what you're counting on. You want people to buy into the hate. You want to spread the FUD and get people hooked on your deluded conspiracy theories. You want to twist the narrative and have people believe your attempts to re-write history with outright lies. Not on my watch. my footnote that appears below my every post has not changed its MY OPINION and people should do their own research And the personal text under my avatar hasn't changed either. I'll continue to call out FUD and lies where I see them. Notice how I haven't been giving you a hard time in the Grayscale thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5256529.0)? You're still a little unnecessarily combative in there, but seemingly not overtly dishonest or coming up with irrational conspiracy theories in that topic. You aren't diverting the discussion off-topic to talk about your misguided views on scaling. You actually manage to display some restraint there, which proves you are capable of being reasonable when it suits you. And I've seen you do the same in other threads, too. But at soon as the topic is SegWit/Scaling/Core Devs/LN/etc, you suddenly turn into some 'Incel-esque' raving lunatic and start spouting nonsense which others feel compelled to address. And that's when I'll pop up to offer my opinions. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. Keep a lid on the crazy and I won't intervene to apply some rationality to proceedings. It's really not that difficult (for most people). Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 16, 2023, 07:12:49 PM doomad you pretend you are correcting fud
yet the events of 2017 where we butt heads the most. i can back up my narrative with blockdata, code and bips and you keep on telling your buddies not to look at that and just follow your cult hymn sheet (heck even the core devs you pretend to defend and pretend to be involved in, themselves admit to their flaws, so its odd that years later you still cling to certain narratives and notions.) i have always given you opportunities to back up your narrative with data(research). but you only rely on quotes you found in the forum of social confirmation bias of people that already followed your narrative. rather than real hard data you pretend im a cult leader or [insert insult] because that is the only dream you live in. a lifestyle of cults and opposing cults. when your unable to poke at the common sense stuff i say. i am not recruiting anyone. not=r am i trying to ass kiss nor ask for ass kissers. i keep telling everyone to do their own research. find independence your the one telling people how, who and what they should speak, where they should and shouldnt speak and what topics people should and shouldnt talk about and when that fails you get your recruits to cry to moderators to try to get me banned your antics say more about you then they do about me one day you will grow out of it.. we can all hope goodluck with your life. Title: Re: Sanity request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 16, 2023, 07:45:10 PM i can back up my narrative with blockdata, code and bips No. You really can't. You're borderline illiterate. You can't accurately interpret what you read half the time. Just because you can point to some code, it doesn't mean you've accurately described what the code does. You do this time and again. You jump to a flawed conclusion, several people (individuals with minds of their own) disagree with you and then you drone on about how those people haven't done enough research because they didn't reach the same flawed conclusion you did. It's getting a little old now. Notice how seldom anyone actually corroborates what you say? People have been looking at your "proof" of what happened in 2017 since 2017. In all those years, why are you still the only one claiming it's all an elaborate cover-up? Where are the users who see things the way you do? Are you suggesting that I'm so powerful on this forum that I've manage to silence all those who might share your view? I mean... I'd take it as a compliment if I didn't find it so hilariously far-fetched. No. The truth is, you're just an imbecile who fails to understand what he reads, but then confidently announces that it's everyone else who is wrong and won't back down, even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that you're talking out of your arse. you get your recruits to cry to moderators to try to get me banned I didn't ask anyone to start this topic. This is just, once again, you failing to conceive that your actions might have consequences. You drove people to do this, not me. Paranoid delusional, much? Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 18, 2023, 12:09:41 AM ok doomad you keep on talking to your dozen buddies to keep you warm at night
just because 12 people tell you what you want to hear. doesnt make you correct its funny how when you get debunked the only last straw you can pull is my literacy.. again for emphasis. this forum is not a legal document its a relaxed discussion forum. if you think i am borderline illiterate. here is a test 1F Y0U C4N7 UND3R574ND 7H15 S3N74NC3 7H4N 17 15 Y0UR L173R4CY 5K1LL5 7H47 4R3 L4CK1NG if you need people to speak in a very very limited version of english for you to understand it. that again is saying more about you then me the english language is a thing of beauty, there are many dialects of it. oi me ol mucker owz ya mah hey dirtbag, how's ur mum Good afternoon old fellow, how is your mother? they all mean the same thing. and are all perfectly fine english, should you dare vacate your house and explore the other area's of the country and actually talk to people around england i dont try to sound like an elitist. i dont need to speak the queens english. if i want to speak like a commoner, i can. most of the time i actually avoid using techno babble and jargon. so that normal people can understand things in normal terms using real world analogies. rather than recently made up buzzwords to sound like an elitist dev, making up new words that have no real meaning, just created to have some special techno-babble language of superiority anyway to your other points there are thousands of people talking about the bitcoin scaling debates, hundreds of topics of such i know you want to invade those topics and talk about promoting your favoured subnetwork, but thats you being blind to whats actually being discussed so yea stay blind if thats what you want and pretend its "just franky" but maybe, just maybe, take some time to look outside your own echo's.. even your recruits are starting to see passed your narrative and see whats actually happened .. maybe thats where your anger really lays you loosing recruits into your cultish narrative oh well, its your own time your wasting oh and ill remind you again even the core devs are happy admitting what they did. so i am still unsure why you plays these games for years pretending devs didnt do things they are now happy to admit they did.. did you miss the memo? or is this another of your amnesia faults you wish to blame your mistakes on Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: digaran on February 18, 2023, 01:37:37 AM 1F Y0U C4N7 UND3R574ND 7H15 S3N74NC3 7H4N 17 15 Y0UR L173R4CY 5K1LL5 7H47 4R3 L4CK1NG oi me ol mucker owz ya mah hey dirtbag, how's ur mum Good afternoon old fellow, how is your mother? Snip. Jokes aside, I don't think you are unable to communicate properly, actually you can deliver the message loud and clear, it's just that you have been crying wolf for so long without anyone to back you up on them, so it's a bit hard to take your side and stand by you all the time, and when you get no support from others, you'd think everyone is in a special circle, I haven't seen anyone to back you up on your conspiracy theories, even though they are interesting to know about, but difficult to believe. At the end of the day, end users really don't care what both parties say, it's not like they are going to protest for every single change in the rules, because we are used to abide by the laws of central authorities, it's in our nature and when the time comes, we are also capable of revolting it just needs enough momentum buildup. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 18, 2023, 03:13:28 AM its funny how when you get debunked the only last straw you can pull is my literacy.. again for emphasis. this forum is not a legal document its a relaxed discussion forum. if you think i am borderline illiterate. here is a test 1F Y0U C4N7 UND3R574ND 7H15 S3N74NC3 7H4N 17 15 Y0UR L173R4CY 5K1LL5 7H47 4R3 L4CK1NG if you need people to speak in a very very limited version of english for you to understand it. that again is saying more about you then me the english language is a thing of beauty, there are many dialects of it. oi me ol mucker owz ya mah hey dirtbag, how's ur mum Good afternoon old fellow, how is your mother? they all mean the same thing. and are all perfectly fine english, should you dare vacate your house and explore the other area's of the country and actually talk to people around england i dont try to sound like an elitist. i dont need to speak the queens english. if i want to speak like a commoner, i can. Thank you for proving my point. I call your reading comprehension into question. You somehow reach the conclusion that I'm referring to the way you type. And yet you think you can read code? ::) Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 20, 2023, 04:19:58 AM it's just that you have been crying wolf for so long without anyone to back you up on them, so it's a bit hard to take your side and stand by you all the time, and when you get no support from others, you'd think everyone is in a special circle, I haven't seen anyone to back you up on your conspiracy theories, even though they are interesting to know about, but difficult to believe. i do love laughing at those silly mindsets the mindsets that idiots think im looking for support, idiots think im looking for back up there have been people that have been against doomads group scripts. but they thought they should play the recruitee game of repeating my words like a script.. i have called those repeating me idiots too im not the one trying to recruit anyone i just want idiots to stop being idiots, just repeating scripts.. its just when those that say stupid stuff that i have seen doomad say, like a script.(and even those repeating me like a script) then they earn the idiot tag by not thinking independently the reason why i repeat myself is because there is a group of about ~12 idiots(doomads losing a couple so is trying to get a few new ones to replace them) that just say the same crap as doomad. on repeat and thus before their stupidity goes viral. it needs correcting my repeats are as a result of crap i see wrote. not as the cause alot just dont care about doomad or have been attacked by him they gave up. doomad and his chums (you can spot them always backing each other up) get angry that i correct them and i dont need people to back me up. i use DATA. SOURCE MATERIAL its the doomad buddy group that has the need to recruit idiots to back each other up. and then use each other as quotes to back up their story. their proof is each other. (echo chamber/confirmation bias) i am not the one that wants or needs ass kissers. i have data stats and reality on my side. im just not scared to say it when ignorant people start insulting anyone that dares say it i have given the 12 recruits of doomads mantra plenty of opportunity to get some data, code or statistic. and all they reply with is social quotes of each other and posts of confirmation bias messages.. plus unlike doomads cult(where he wants everyone to sing the same songs..) there are hundreds of hundreds of THOUSANDS of bitcoiners that have their own minds. and they make their own topics about bitcoin scaling, said in their own ways. that ask about onchain scaling. not subnetwork crap ... so if you want data.. that shows the 12 idiots working together on the same scripts and backing each other up well lets use loyces merit stats.. that way you cant say the data is manipulated by my thoughts. look at the usual merit cycling of the same dozen people in this topic that side with doomads mantra are always meriting each other then look at the topics doomad(and those that just sound like doomad) group is in and who comes to their rescue to defend that narrative. same dozen people their anger is their salepitches are not gaining momentum of going viral thus their subnetwork is not populating to the speeds they hoped for 7 years ago yet there are a whole lot more then his silly dozen that have independent minds wanting onchain scaling. thousands of people. they say things in their own way, their own opinions and their own words, just nt getting involved in the doomad drama doomads chums are subnetwork adorers, acting as failed sales men that have doomad and those like doomad spreading the same crap snake oils salesmen scripts.. hundreds of thousands of other people have their own mind and want bitcoin mainnet growth but are being told "be patient" for the last 7 years i am not the only one that wants onchain scaling(there are hundreds of topics with thousands of people). but then we see the same dozen invade those topics to advertise doomads favoured subnet as the solution and how doomad keeps trying to say onchain scaling is not needed, wont happen cant happen until his subnetwork is popular but doomad only sees me, because im one of the few to call him out on his BS(other independent minds just ignore/avoid him) so he and his chums have gone narrow vision on those that are fighting off his snake oil salesman speaches whilst thousands of other just dont want to be involved in his silly crap fights what doomad chums need to realise in the many many years that doomad says "be patient" wait for his favoured subnetwork to populate before getting anything else... other subnetworks not part of doomads favoured brand. are getting more recognition and populated than doomads favoured subnetwork there are some[non doomad favoured subnetworks] that have locked up more bitcoin and using that as value representation on those subnetworks. and gained more liquidity and utility in under 18 months. compared to the hopes that the doomad cult have achieve in 6 years of waiting for doomads favoured brand of subnetwork has doomads not getting the momentum of recruits he wants to jump over to his schemes. and some of his previous recruits are seeing the holes in his narrative and slowly pulling away so doomad is obsessed with thinking his fight is about recruiting and his opposers need to show their own ass-kisser recruitment plan.. he think is its a competition he doesnt realise that its not... becasue he has lost my mantra is just to wake up idiots to his game. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: nutildah on February 20, 2023, 05:55:56 AM it's just that you have been crying wolf for so long without anyone to back you up on them, so it's a bit hard to take your side and stand by you all the time, and when you get no support from others, you'd think everyone is in a special circle, I haven't seen anyone to back you up on your conspiracy theories, even though they are interesting to know about, but difficult to believe. i do love laughing at those silly mindsets the mindsets that idiots think im looking for support, idiots think im looking for back up I interpreted what he's saying as "no one backs you up because everyone understands how you are wrong." Has nothing to do with whether or not you are looking for support. i do love laughing at those silly mindsets Probably the worst quality of your posts is the utter lack of humility. You are always talking down to everyone, belittling them, dismissing them, telling them they are wrong and "need to do research," when quite often it is you who is wrong, and provably so. Its extremely insulting, and that combined with a pathological inability to ever admit you were wrong causes a lot of people to conclude you are a troll. You'll likely find a reason to dismiss all this rather than use it to understand why people think of you the way they do, but you can't say nobody ever tried to explain it to you. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: digaran on February 20, 2023, 06:04:21 AM ~snip. When you are addressing your audience idiots 9 times on a single post it would be a difficult task to get your message heard. But since you consider anyone not following your narrative as idiots, you should also consider the obvious that idiots are called idiots for a reason. I like it though to see you resort to insults when the comments are not in your favour, what should we call this? A freaking irony? One would definitely call it just that if one reads your comment. Good for those hundreds of thousands imaginary independent open minded community members who support your narratives with their own special language which only you understand, because idiots can't understand remember? With this mindset of yours, it'd be highly unlikely to hold a ground where some people would have liked to remain in as neutral, thus they'd decide to turn against you. Not implying myself here. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 21, 2023, 12:53:27 AM again your stuck in the mindset of "follow a narrative" game where you think if i am trying to get a bunch of idiots to stop following one false narrative. you feel it must be becasue i am trying to recruit them into my narrative(facepalm)
please try to escape the mindset that its about choosing sides.. where you thin there is a competition of 2 sides.. the dozen i call idiots are idiots becasue they dont want or avoid doing research and instead follow a script nearly word for word of a stupid narrative that cannot be backed up by blockdata/code or historic events everyone else can and does do some research or atleast shows willingness to learn, for themelves.. i dont need asskissers nor want people to quote me as their source. i want people to actually look at real sources like the blockchain data, statistics and actual information they can learn from independantly. and not be spoonfed its never been about some silly recruitment for people to follow my narrative. its about willingness to learn and not just viral spam a stupid false narrative inspired by the same dozen idiots confirmation biasing each other in s echo chamber of cabin fever i am not calling loads of people idiots .. just the main dozen i am not even trying to get people to quote me word for word so its not even about people needing to follow me i dont want idiots script following me. i want people to learn for themselves, to do their own research and think for themselves and not sound like mindless sheep just spamming some narrative they found in some social club if you think i want or need followers. then you are still thinking too small Title: Re: Sanity request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 24, 2023, 11:38:40 PM Rather than continue to derail the Ordinals topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437787.0), this is going here:
learn about consensus. It is clearly you who does not understand consensus, because you keep telling us how it "should" word instead of how it does work. You can repeat your idiot catchphrase as much as you like. I'm not learning your make-believe version of consensus because it doesn't exist. You imagine that just because some previous fork proposals were hardforks with a 95% activation threshold that it means all future ones have to be the same. There's no rule which makes that so and there's no way you can enforce such a rule (despite your abundantly clear desire that were the case). telling people to shut up and go away. Come up with a better argument. You've been repeating the same shit non-stop for years and it's getting old. People will naturally tell you to shut up and go away if you keep repeating yourself when no one gives a shit about the totalitarian nightmare-fuel you're trying to sell them. YOUR MAIN MISSION is censorship Says the ego-maniacal asshat who wants to tell devs what they can and can't code. ::) Yes or no, would you censor softforks if you could? If you want efficiency, run a centralised database. If you want people to only use blockchains for things you personally approve of, run a project with gatekeepers. If you want to tell people what can or can't be coded, start a closed-source project. Those are all things you claim you want, but you won't find any of that shit in Bitcoin, so please enlighten us as to what the fuck it is you're even doing here when you hate literally everything about it. What's wrong with your brain? You utterly despise every single part of Bitcoin and yet you pretend you're its biggest fan while you come up with absurd ideas to destroy everything that makes it great. Nothing about your continued presence here makes any sense whatsoever. Telling you to go away is quite literally the best advice anyone could possibly offer you. What you want is not Bitcoin. It's not even fucking close. You don't get to unilaterally declare what is or isn't an acceptable activation threshold for a fork. You don't get to unilaterally declare softforks aren't a valid method of activation. You don't get to unilaterally declare what devs are permitted or not permitted to code. None of your deluded and arbitrary declarations are remotely connected to consensus or how it works. If you think otherwise, you're in the wrong place. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 25, 2023, 12:09:35 AM you debunked yourself by admitting hard consensus did exist and has been softened
You imagine that just because some previous fork proposals were hardforks with a 95% activation threshold that it means all future ones have to be the same. but hey if youdont want full nodes to be compliant to a ruleset at a 95%+ security level.. that just shows how you prefer less nodes % securing the network which is more evidence of your lack of wanting bitcoin to be secure as for your "franky is totalitarian" "franky is irrelevant" paradox.. pick one and stick with it as for totalitarian ego note who in this topic of censoring a user.. who is censoring who note your own comments of you telling people to shut up. note how you love getting peoples posts deleted and how you want people that dont agree with your preferences should f**k off as for "If you want people to only use blockchains for things you personally approve of, run a project with gatekeepers." your the guy that only wants core to code bitcoin with features only they want to see. you cannot see the difference between core vs bitcoin because you can only see core IS bitcoin. and anyone outside of core ideational as non bitcoiners you have been part of many REKT campaigns and anyone that wants to even propose something that is not part of the core roadmap you fight them. its YOU that loves that core have gatekeepers and you think thats how all projects should be, becasue you are suggesting thats how i should also do it because its the only narrow vision method you can think of Title: Re: Sanity request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on February 25, 2023, 12:53:43 PM you debunked yourself by admitting hard consensus did exist and has been softened Wrong. You want to paint the facade that things like softforks and blockheight activations are somehow immoral and you act as though all forks prior to SegWit were miner-activated hardforks with 95%+ consensus. This is simply untrue. I could waste time searching for examples, but you're the one who loves research, so feel free to double check. Bitcoin has used blockheight activations and softforks prior to SegWit. It is not inaccurate for me to point out that some fork proposals were MAHF 95%+ activation, but you are entirely wrong to pretend they all were. as for your "franky is totalitarian" "franky is irrelevant" paradox.. pick one and stick with it There is no paradox. If you held any influence, you would use that influence to make authoritarian decisions that would restrict freedom and harm Bitcoin. If you somehow managed to successfully emulate history's renowned dictators, you would be dangerous. Luckily, most of your arguments are pathetic and unconvincing. People aren't rallying to your misguided cause. They aren't drinking your Kool-Aid. My goal is simply to continue dismantling all your absurd arguments and ensure you never hold any influence. I work to ensure you remain irrelevant. Ergo, you are an irrelevant totalitarian. Both apply equally. //EDIT: you if you lived 200 years ago. would have been a slave owner. Says the asshat attempting to enslave Devs. If I really wanted a dev to code something, I'd offer to pay them for their services. But that's unacceptable for fascistfranky1. He demands servitude with no recompense. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on February 25, 2023, 02:36:55 PM strange thing is. its you that makes most demands. you even want to control when where and how people post. you want to control their use of language. you say no one has to give consent to your ideals and you want core to do anything they like where users cannot refuse to be recipients of illegal content
core can do anything they like in their github. but when it comes to the (note: separate) activated ruleset of bitcoin network. core should not have trojan god mode control to do as they please your main problem is that you do not see the difference between the bitcoin network. and cores github. you are the one that thinks core should be a central point of failure for the bitcoin network. and you enjoy that risk remaining you if you lived 200 years ago. would have been a slave owner. all you care about is making money from the abuse of slaves. and you dont care what harm it causes, as long as you side with the "lawmakers"(core) you will continue to want to abuse others to get your way and thats why you dont want core to lose their political position, and replaced with actual level playing vield of multiple brands of implementations that can all do their own proposals where users unite on a common interest via hard consensus Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Jet Cash on February 28, 2023, 02:45:58 PM He used to stalk me, but I've had him on ignore for a few years now. So I won't see replies to this post (if any) should he decide to respond.
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on February 28, 2023, 03:09:26 PM your main problem is that you do not see the difference between the bitcoin network. and cores github. you are the one that thinks core should be a central point of failure for the bitcoin network. and you enjoy that risk remaining I can't seem how he enjoys that view. I don't even think he's ever said that Core should be the network's central point of failure, which should take the entire network on their backs. All he says is simple, yet hard for you to comprehend: developers are free to code whatever they wish. Any developer, no exceptions. Just hit a pull request, and discuss it with the rest of the team. It's you who doesn't like freedom in coding, and want to enforce your view upon the rest, even if you aren't convincing enough. You think that for the most pro-freedom money protocol in existence, enforcing your view for the common good (which I agree you think it's correct) is more important than retaining its freedom. Irresponsible and arrogant. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: tread93 on March 02, 2023, 04:13:22 AM Franky (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837) appears to create a lot of noise when it comes to threads regarding the Lightning Network[1][2][3]. The way this person talks is ill-intentioned and does not contribute anything to the discussion. Instead, he starts yelling and spreading lies and FUD[4][5] whenever we're talking about something that is not in his interest (such as the LN) and demands from the users to do as he says[6]. Anyone who's against his ideas is being cursed. Countless of times his posts are getting deleted after been reported. Still, he has an account here and is allowed to act same like without any penalties. However, those who do want to constructively prove him wrong are being punished by having their posts deleted and thus discouraged to stop his future FUD. I address to the moderating team and request a ban, whether that's temporary or permanent. I also address to those who have been part in discussions with him and are annoyed by this uncontrolled abuse of the forum's free speech as he's infringing the rules: Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information? A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse. However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post). It's down to you to support my statement that what he does is trolling. [1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376568.msg58708356#msg58708356 [2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58877861#msg58877861 [3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58804168#msg58804168 [4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379599.msg58894664#msg58894664 [5] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58827879#msg58827879 [6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58878182#msg58878182 This dude has spent over a year of his life in logged in time on this forum, an absolute fking legend in my book hahahha. Good or bad you have got to give it to him, this dude is FRANK with everyone and completely righteous in his own mind. He could very well be the best party that he's ever been to hehehhe. IMO everyone is entitles to TOO (Their Own Opinion) Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: BlackHatCoiner on March 02, 2023, 09:43:13 AM If franky1 is frank, then I'm a blackhat.
Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: FatFork on March 02, 2023, 09:53:33 AM If franky1 is frank, then I'm a blackhat. So, does that mean I'm "fat"? No. I resent that. :D Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on March 06, 2023, 06:46:55 AM If franky1 is frank, then I'm a blackhat. angelo.. seeing as you have retired from scrap metal trading.. when i think of you this is what i see https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/285x214/352861_1.jpg reference is a tv show called steptoe and son about a poor old guy in the scrap business.. oh he wears a black hat Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on May 31, 2023, 05:39:27 PM If we're not going to ban this disruptive lunatic, can we at least quarantine him in the Altcoins sub? He clearly wants a version of Bitcoin that doesn't include SegWit or Taproot. That's something he could easily have, but it definitely sounds like one of those cheap knockoff forkcoins to me. Given that posts about Altcoins belong in the Altcoins section, surely any posts franky1 makes in a Bitcoin-specific part of the forum requesting the removal of SegWit or Taproot would therefore be off-topic.
He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit. It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum. SegWit was activated in 2017. It's now 2023. During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: LeGaulois on June 01, 2023, 12:12:59 AM Great democracy... It makes me think about politics when conservatives are being blamed by the wokes :D I'm joking but there is a bit of truth in it. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Jet Cash on June 02, 2023, 08:33:53 AM I'm surprised that this thread is still running. I bet "not so" Frankly is loving the publicity. :)
ps. Don't forget the ignore button guys. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: franky1 on June 08, 2023, 07:21:55 AM He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit. It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum. SegWit was activated in 2017. It's now 2023. During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't. segwit 2017 its 2023.. =6 years bitcoin 2009 its 2023 =14 years 14-6 =8 8 years without segwit 6 years with it segwit has not been part of the protocol for longer than it hasnt but its funny how you want to make me the variable to mess the math up to pretend that segwit has been part of bitcoin for longer.. you keep doing that using weird things to pretend that exploitable problems have always existed in bitcoin for longer then they actually have plus many bitcoiners are seeing the exploits caused by "consensus cleanup" changes of the last 6 years yep the "anyonecanspend" treatment of non standard transactions to bypass validation checks has been seen time and time again to cause issues. this debate of the softening of consensus is an ongoing issue causing more problems than benefits. as for wanting to censor me into the altcoin sub.. funny part is its YOU that wants people to stop using bitcoin and use other networks. im the one highlighting when bitcoin gets exploited, rules changed for the worse and wanting bitcoin to be fixed and evolve. you dont want bitcoin to scale you want other networks to be the promises of scaling pretending other networks are "bitcoin" you are the altcoiner. and you are the one trying to "censor" people the most. telling peole that they should not use bitcoin for $2-$20 amounts because you dont want to see 11% of the worlds unbanked people using bitcoin(your no western coffee/pizza censorship mantra, translates to no weekly wage for unbanked censorship) yep you dont want people to discuss topics.. you dont want fixes to exploits you want bitcoin politics centralised(core authority), you want bitcoin to break(rule bypasses), you want less decentralised blockdata(pruned), you want bitcoin to be too expensive for normal use(fee market) you want to make people stop using bitcoin due to exploits or fee mania you dont care about bitcoin at all. as long as you can scrape together a few pennys promoting scammy crap you are happy. all you care about is scamming value out of people(theft of channel balance) and also leaving other people with your dirty coin taint(mixer) while you leave them handling all of troubles you dont want prevented, fixed, removed Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: JayJuanGee on June 08, 2023, 10:17:07 PM He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit. It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum. SegWit was activated in 2017. It's now 2023. During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't. segwit 2017 its 2023.. =6 yearsbitcoin 2009 its 2023 =14 years 14-6 =8 8 years without segwit 6 years with it segwit has not been part of the protocol for longer than it hasnt Even though technically you seem to be right that non-segwit existed longer than segwit bitcoin, yet many of us should realize and appreciate that not all years (in bitcoinlandia) are created equal... If you had not noticed, segwit was passed through consensus in about August 2017 and then thereafter implemented within a month or so thereafter.. and then thereafter people have been building upon bitcoin based upon the fact that segwit is a part of bitcoin's options... so a lot of ongoing building going on and that building in bitcoin has a lot of segwit in various parts of bitcoin. Accordingly, it seems to me that it would be quite difficult to reverse segwit - including the need to get people (or do we say nodes?) that need to agree since anyone can introduce new code or old code that reverses segwit (and then run that non-segwit code) and there are some blockchains that exist that are bitcoin-like that you can participate in that seem to already be living in an anti-segwit existence, no:.. at least BCH and BSV, right? Good luck with getting anyone to run your non-segwit code.. Maybe you will create a version of bitcoin (or find one that already exists) that is better than BCH/BSV, or are you whining because other shitcoins have tried to create "better versions of bitcoin" (to the extent that they are genuine beyond the mere goals of printing money for themselves and their insiders) and they have all failed, so far.. Maybe you are going to find/develop/create a non-segwit version of bitcoin that everyone wants to run (and everyone wants to switch over to the lovely and better version that you had created)....and then become the new bitcoin? For some reason, it seems that the ship of taking segwit out of bitcoin has sailed.. but you ongoingly seem to want to just get your way to get segwit to be reversed (taken out of bitcoin), without even getting people to change their mind and to actually support your new and improved (non-segwit) version of bitcoin.. Even if there are problems with bitcoin as it currently exists, and with segwit, then aren't we still in a system that exists and segwit cannot just be taken out of bitcoin.. wouldn't that cause more troubles for bitcoin, rather than solutions? this debate of the softening of consensus is an ongoing issue causing more problems than benefits. I guess that I don't sufficiently understand what you are saying enough.. since I had thought that it is more and more difficult to get things to pass in bitcoin these days as compared to the past.. .. even though maybe you are referring to taproot and some of those related matters passing... but what do I know? I should probably just leave you two love birds to squabble over some of these kinds of technical implementation matters.. and yes, I see that you (franky) claim to ongoingly raising alarms in the bitcoin space regarding the so many supposed problems with current days bitcoin, and characterizing that no one else is doing that, and you are potentially contributing through your ongoing complaints.. .. but at the same time, your framing of how you are blaming current days bitcoin for a large variety of supposed problems that people are having frequently is way too muchie confusing para mi. Many times there are going to be technical issues in regards to adoption of anything, whether we are referring to bitcoin or anything else, but if we are trying to be honest and open in our assessment, we likely need to attempt to weigh a variety of factors that involve considering if bitcoin continues to give more options to normies or not.. and as normies ourselves, we likely need to attempt to decide upon which of the bitcoin tools that we want to run and how we might run them in terms of hopefully adding benefits to ourselves that might deal both with transactions and wealth preservation. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: DooMAD on June 10, 2023, 03:52:14 PM He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit. It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum. SegWit was activated in 2017. It's now 2023. During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't. segwit 2017 its 2023.. =6 years bitcoin 2009 its 2023 =14 years 14-6 =8 8 years without segwit 6 years with it segwit has not been part of the protocol for longer than it hasnt I said "since you joined the community", you illiterate bellend. One day you'll learn to read, but I won't hold my breath. Title: Re: Ban request for user: franky1 Post by: Jet Cash on June 12, 2023, 07:43:20 AM Bring back Tman. It was much more fun talking about him, than talking about not-so-Franky.
|
