Bitcoin Forum

lets imagine we had the power to develop a CBDC which didnt have a premine. but instead a fair mechanism of "new coin" creation

how you would set out a way to create new money.
we know FIAT currently uses mortgage agreements/ QE bond agreements to create new money
but imagine you had the central bank think-tank advisory position to create a new CBDC with a fair and better "coin minting" mechanism

lets hear your idea's.

my idea, for fun..(not scrutinised for every possible scenario)
when a child is born. in a multisig of parents +doctor(midwife witness of bith) plus government birth records department. create an allotment of coin. which equates to social security payments for a min rate income over 80 years.

however those coins are not just released at birth. they are locked. to only be released under X circumstance (unemployment, retirement, childcare, education)

thus the new coins take care of the social security, public services payment system, thus remove tax obligations.

now lets hear your idea's

disclaimer
this is a bit of fun economic thinking. about a hypothetical scenario of wishing into an existence a crypto monetary system that whole nations would want to use. specifically the minting process that would be fair

its not about a opportunity for weed smoking tin-foiler's to be challenged to mention their paranoia where they think their politicians are sat at computers watching their constituents/citizens coffee purchases('gov i s watching me')

(please try to stick to a economic thinking of a fair monetary system not a political conspiracy)

A fair and better coin minting is less attractive to me since this so called CBDC coin is a stable coin anyways, my question is who cares? Also I don't believe in the word "fair" from anything that's coming from a centralized power or the government.

If CBDC is ever going to work out it will be used just like USDT and USDC.

There is a question as to whether morality can exist in a world where moral behavior is lawfully required or incentively rewarded.

Let's say that a person goes 1 full year without breaking any traffic laws. They are incentively rewarded by paying 5% lower income taxes and a lump sum bonus of exclusive deflationary CBDC which they can HODL under the expectation of it accumulating value over their lifetime. (This CBDC in theory, could only be earned and accumulated through good behavior, on a public ledger which would routinely be independently scrutinized, it could also only be sold exclusively back to the state at a higher price than when it was received, at which time the coins would be destroyed. The state would hold $1 trillion in coin reserves, which could routinely be sold off at regular intervals to fund coin buy backs. Not 100% certain on the format, but in essence it would be a deflationary and scarce commodity which appreciated in value over time)

Would following traffic laws still be a moral act? Or could they become motivated by greed and material gain, which could transform the act of following traffic laws into an immoral act?

What would happen if this precedent were applied to areas outside of traffic laws.

Its an old concept but still might be interesting to consider.

....

Here are a few other decent resources on the topic.

5% tax rebate if you dont speed

income per year $20k untaxable allowance $12k
tax 20% which is 20% on 8k= $1600

5% discount on $1600=$80

so dont speed save $80.. speed and get caught means pay a $80 'tax'
hmm sounds like standard speeding ticket to me, just worded backwards

...
here is another idea for fun

earning through learning
A grade = x coin   C grade = 0.8 x coin  F grade 0.5 x coin

during education getting X coin to cover a certain allotment of earnings
such as if there was a half semester exam you get 1/6th of a years income at a social security level(below min wage) to cover any living /educational costs for F grader,, and double for A grader that can be at or above min wage

 and at graduation getting XXXX (at multiple of grade rating) coin to cover a reasonable amount to cover a retirement amount or lengthy time of unemployment

thus the better you do at school the better the lifestyle you can have and security for future unexpected events that leaving you relying on your social payment.

it also sets thresholds for employers to meet standards of their salary offers to tempt better grade people to work
EG unskilled employers offer of min wage is 2x better than what the F grader is living on via his social security/education funds. where as an employer wanting an A grader would/should offer more then minimum wage to tempt them to work for the company

The problem is that you are combining contradicting ideas. Centralized CBDC and fair money printing and new money to cover min rate income over 80 years, etc.
Most of the times when governments print money they are doing it to cover their budget deficit (case in point: Germany these days that is heading towards a record debt; or any country during COVID19 pandemic). In other words as long as we are mixing the cryptocurrency with the existing financial structure there can't be any fairness in it. They need to have full control over how they print more money.

In any other decentralized design we have bitcoin which the supply has to be predefined and can't have unlimited supply with volatile printing rate.

A fair mechanism would be hardwork-based rewards. But it should be designed in such a way that once a problem is properly solved by anyone he/she is guaranteed reward. It's more like Bitcoin or gold Mining, with rewards hidden in puzzles that are automatically released once solved.
This would make the Bitcoin or Gold found in this manner a hard money/reward. And Hard Rather Than Easy Money is better for an economy as it takes hardwork to solve problems and create enough values. Hardwork = using enough time & energy to solve problems and create sufficient value.


I think whatever payment is made to a child should be inherited, so we don't run into the problem of children getting paid money printed out of nothing that probably will be use for only consumption without producing enough, thus increasing the prices of goods & services and creating inflation.

Money should be hard to create just like it's hard to create bitcoin. It should be reward for job well done, or for working & solving problems without creating more problems. This is suppose to be so because we all have roles to serve. And money should be given to those who are serving their roles well otherwise we would have the issue of people getting paid without serving their roles, and problems will pile up with no one or very few solving them due to lack of insensitive.

Some say let's just create the machines to solve the problems better/faster than humans & for humans, and we won't have the issues you described. Well, humans and the world aren't designed that way. That will be the end of the world. Look at what the over reliance on machines and computers have done to people so far. They are getting fat, finding it hard to solve simple problems, etc. It's seems the parts of the human bodies created for the roles machines/computers are taking over from are weakening, dying off or shutting down.
Hardwork is satisfying if the role is yours, the problem getting solved by you and you are getting rewarded

I assume that you are coming up with the suggestion that this theoretical coin will be accepted as legal tender and all the merchants would be legally forced to accept crypto coin payments. Otherwise this coin would be simply worthless.
You are proposing a model about child birth, but what about immigration? If new immigrants enter the country, will they receive such minted coins, in case of unemployment, education, illness, retirement, etc.? If yes, won't this model create high inflation?
I usually don't trust theoretical models, in which the money (both fiat and crypto) are created out of thin air. This seems like a recipe for hyperinflation and financial disaster. There's a thing called labor theory of value. The value of every product/service is determined by the amount of labor, which was invested into the creation of the product or completion of the service.
You can't create something out of nothing and give it actual value.
Anyway, to answer your request about a theoretical economical model.
My proposal is to give every person (above the legal age) a certain amount of coins(maybe 1000) and let's see what happens. The total supply of coins in circulation will be fixed and there will be no additional coins. ;D

it is all just fun and hypothetical economics

it wasnt about me making an ICO proposal
i can make billions of ICO coins but never wanted to

it was more about knowing CBDC are just crypto fiat pre-minting trillions and just swapping out the native fiat. (worse economic model)

i was thinking what if we as common people came up with better idea's that didnt rely on debt creation/involving a tax burden.

thus having it no longer mortgage created money or QE created. but where every person had a fair "savings" which could be used for education or unemployment or retirement. thus reduce the tax burden while also creating money without the debt burden.

as for working
i dont personally feel we should 'live to work' or 'work to live'. where we need to spend 60 hours a week in slave employment just to survive.
but instead comfortably work maybe 25-30 hours to live comfortably

where we know we can retire and enjoy life at a still healthy and useful age of 55yo-60 and actually have time to enjoy life

where things like education means we actually get a better employment income or better lifestyle. compared to current regime where even having a $100k debt for a degree doesnt guarantee you a good job

..
so for fun hypothetical imagine you have a magic wand and created a monetary system that helps improve overall work-life-education-employment prospects. instead of leaving people with debt and taxes as the only thing to be left with

This is free money. First case is a free insurance, second is... some sort of stimulus for learning.
For the first case, I've seen in my country giving free money to those hit by flash floods; I've never find it fair, they've pretty much bought some votes with tax payers' money, instead of fixing the problem (deforestation). I don't really agree with your ideas either and I don't think they'll be implemented easy or at all:
* CBDCs are money and in the global acceptation money usually is something one gets as payment for something, no matter it's another good or some service/work done for the payer
* there are few countries wealthy enough to just give money to its citizen, that's an exception; in all the rest of the cases somebody (the taxpayer) has worked for that money
* so free insurance is an unfair equalitarian thing, for which probably some tax payers will pay more and some less, and still receiving the same "service"
* education... when I'll see politicians indeed and for real support education, then this may worth a second thought...  :-\

Now, "no premine" would somehow mean wealth created out of thin air and then distributed, and we both know that if everybody receive gold for free, gold will no longer stay valuable.
So, since it's a central bank coin, i.e. a digital representation of same ol' fiat, there will be the same type of "premine" all fiat has (just this time it will be a replacement of a few tons of printed paper) and the fair mechanism would remain the salaries.

Sorry that I didn't really follow a very clear line of thought, but I hope you've got my points. Bitcoin has this success because it's a representation of hard work (of the ASICs), free airdrops cannot compete with that.

The idea looks intriguing. But ... Everyone spoils the nuances ...
One of them is the need for the state budget to neutralize all sorts of negative processes that lead to the "printing" of money. A net balance in the form - money supply = gross product or other indicator, unfortunately is not possible. More precisely, if it is possible, then only in ideal conditions of the economy, order. This is not about the economy of the state and order in the country, this is about the world economy, world peace, and the absence of international problems, such as wars, sanctions, economic terror, etc.
In a word - the idea is cool, but at the level of utopia

this is not about actual real world proposal. im not interested in creating any ICO.

this is fun hypothetical how would you want to design a CBDC with a fair money creation system, that would be better than what the real world CBDC pre-mine/loan value money creation offerings are

.. in short. if money creation was no longer mortgage/QE created. in a scenario how else would you have a system of fair money creation. what other ways can you all think up new ways for money creation thats fairer

or if it was debt based created. how would you make that system better than current fiat


yes i want people to think about how their desired money creation systems affect things like GDP measures. and how it can affect employment, education, and the costs of tax, social security, etc etc

but its more about if you had a wand to create a system what system of money creation can you think up..

for instance in my birth ratified money creation idea. it:
removes the initial XX trillion premine for NO reason.
removes the mortgage/QE mechanisms for money creation.
and instead has a "show me a birth certificate and here have a pot of money"

where by i am not asking or explaining if that pot of money is locked until 18 or 60. im just saying that the money creation is locked to population increase

now lets see your fun ideas

I like the idea of a CBDC reflecting on the economy of a country too. Taking your locked system but combining it with the idea that £6k/$8k is enough to invest as a child to retire off (similar to how state pension works in the UK).

I think a system like that could be achieved for a CBDC and might make companies think twice about making too many foreign investments if they can profit themselves by negotiating for the initial company to franchise or decentralise itself.

A CBDC that matches the wealth of an economy would also bring a surprise to how valuable certain countries were or how they are perceived.

Obviously a deflationary amount of coins could then also be minted every year to give people an incentive to keep working and not rely on the money they already have in the CBDC if they use it more like a financial cushion.

some other idea's

lets expand on hydrogens morality coin idea

if you do no crime you earn coin.
EG no speeding tickets, no convictions, no disobedience.

but where disobedience, convictions, result in a minus balance

EG murder. = equivalent of a -$800k balance. where you dont get out of prison until break even, via earning good behaviour credit while in prison
(EG ends up being a 40year sentence if max good behaviour rated as $20k a year)

or a speeding ticket being a -$100 where by if you cant pay it with any positive balance you spend that time in jail until you earn enough good behavior to break even
(EG ends up being a 43 hours in jail if max good behaviour rated as $20k a year)

where that initial minus balance. becomes funds put into a victims support account
...
separate idea
reputation

showing you have education. work history earns you more social credits to spend later in life. where the morality coin can can take away from that if disobedient

(lets not go into the gov conspiracy of controlling a obedient populous via authoritarian restrictive rule of what is obedient)

This is not a bad idea. It's an improvement/extrapolation of the bonus/malus system on the state level.
Of course, if one is caught some years later he didn't pay taxes or did murder somebody, then the wrongly received bonus needs to be taken back too.
And it makes overall sense because the good citizen give less work/headaches to "the state" than the others, hence they do save some money; it's fine that some returns to them.

Thanks for bringing back that post into attention, I could have been missing it. And it's ... a good/viable one.

other idea's

countries treasury release the budget ledger accounts for public spending need for the following year
and citizens vote in each year either money creation which dilutes current supply value. or taxation % increase to cover costs

that way citizens decide rather then politicians

IMO the idea of releasing coins for people at certain conditions like unemployment goes against the basics of libertarianism and decentralization. CBDCs in most forms are flawed and governments are trying to impose them on us and take away cash because otherwise nobody would agree to this. They will proceed in taking away our financial freedom by pushing these broken financial instruments that have only one thing about them that seems to work and it's control.

Based on your first idea, you'd want people to get a cheat sheet knowing that if they ever get unemployed they'll get free money, or if they finish school they'll get free money. You'd get people who'd sign up to a number of courses knowing it's all going to be paid for by the government. As long as they keep learning they're going to keep getting paid. Then, after getting all the possible education for free and having some money saved up, they'd move to another country where such knowledge is expensive, to compete on the job market and get the best position and the best pay.

I won't give you a fair idea for a central bank digital currency, because the central bank itself can never be "fair".

i know some think "no government. work for your own survival or die" (survival of fittest). but thats not civilisation. its tribalism. or just 1 on 1 fight to the death anarchy

there are times where we do need outside support and help from others.
tribal leaders educating the youth, warriors defending the tribe, medicine women healing the weak
(modern(fast forward 500 years): teachers, police, nurses)

or even just a unbiased or voted in representative to mediate disagreements of common good and find ways to solve problems for the majority. tribal leader, wiseman
(modern(fast forward 500 years): ministers, senators)

ofcourse many many examples of government failures to meet the needs of the common man have show resentment of government and government have oversteped their remit many times to gain more power whilst limiting individuals options.

but putting aside the failures.
if we could "reset" the regime and have a common value of fair monetary system. how would you design it

EG imagine cryptocurrency existed in the 1600's and transacting with different tribes where there was an agreed value of a coin based on some real coin creation mechanism of real value. how would you go about it. what mechanism of value creation and coin creation would you invent.

..
so heres another idea
every time a tribe/clan/community vote on a new law the tribe/community need to follow. that new law comes with new coins to cover the cost of maintaining the law. EG a law to create employment of the first ever police officers of a country. pays those police a salary. where by those police are only there to patrol the public streets to be within 30 seconds of a call out of help incase of robbery or murder or rape

where people then offer goods and services to support the cops. by accepting their coins for food and shelter. which then expands into other laws for coin creation. such as education or fire service. where the coin then goes into circulation and becomes common

again. im not wanting to discuss the speed or ability of a coin becoming common or even having a ICO being made or being proposed.
im just asking for fun idea's of a purpose of WHY newly generated coins to be minted/mined into existance could be made fairly.. where it creates value.. rather than just "printing" for sake of printing

In my opinion, CBDC is one of the elements of a digital concentration camp. 

If I were given the task of developing a fair financial system for all of Humanity, then I would take as a basis a system that distributes reputation tokens.  I would suggest that earthlings focus on achieving two strategic goals - the preservation of humanity as a species and the maximization of happiness for all people. 

To achieve these two strategic goals, I would create an interactive human development roadmap.  All the people of the Earth would be involved in improving the roadmap in real time. 

For this work, people will receive reputation tokens that can be spent on buying additional benefits.

Could've fooled me.  You've made loads of posts advocating a coin where devs aren't allowed to code what they want.  For some peculiar reason, you keep calling it Bitcoin, although Bitcoin is clearly never going to work like that.  But yeah, a CBDC would be much more suitable for your preferred style of network governance.  Completely centralised, probably closed-source.  A tool for enforcing the will of a small minority onto an unwilling majority.  Sounds like a wet dream you have nightly.



Restricting freedom is your idea of "fun".  Quelle surprise.   ::)

I can't talk for CBDC, but I always had this stablecoin idea where it grew with a %10 steady pace every year and owners would get that extra. So if you owned it, you would be gradually getting more the longer you hold it. I haven't decided it if t would b like per hour or day or week or month, but as long as you keep it on your wallet, it would have a %10 per year increase to all owners, directly to their wallets that hold it, no staking, no mining, just straight goes into their address that has it. This way it would prevent inflation and also would grow as well like fiat. And its stable as well so it should be covered, but how would you cover something that grows %10? Where would that money come from? Well that's what I couldn't figure out so I never did it lol.

cry some more doomad, its what your best at

you have no clue. but continue to cry.

devs can code what they like. but when it comes to a network that involves consensus devs should not have the ability to just trojan in new features without the mass of nodes being ready to validate such new rules upfront. to THEN activate the new rule/feature so that the nodes know how to treat it.

(after 5 years of correcting your cries. lets emphasise once again)
what should happen is nodes upgrade to include proposed validation code. and then it activates


try to learn a few things because you have wasted 5 years on crying about your authoritarian system where you want core devs to be the deciding power house above user nodes where user nodes have no choice

consensus is about opt-in(vote) to activate
where lack of majority = no activation
where there is no miscount of inclusion, no pre activation mandated fork, no rejecting opposition to fake majority.

YOU think it means activate and have those that dont opt in just be sheep following without verifying the new rules. or already thrown off the network by showing objection

you have no clue what the true blockchain and consensus inventions purpose is.

you love a subnetwork that has no blockchain or consensus and you love that it doesnt. you dont want accountability of the masses, by the masses
you want 1 on 1 battle of the fittest

now go cry somewhere that people wish to kiss your ass and hug you. becasue that s all you seem to positively respond to
so go talk to your subnetwork community of a dozen big mouths.

you are the irritant of the forum and you think your are liked because you see (only) 12 people that kiss your ass so think they represent the "community"

i dont care about being liked. id rather discuss the important things of how things actually work or should work.. not play your games offering empty promises and unsold dreams of networks that exist but have more structural flaws then a cracked wall on a weak foundation of some outdated and under used church (i use a church analogy becasue you sound like a religious preacher for your community)

things i do see.
obviously its more like bank account savings interest. where by the longer you save the more coin you accumulate. rather than spending it and letting someone else accumulate.

but just getting extra coin is inflationary.
because there is no supply end limit. nor a decrease of supply per period.
infact 10% of X means more coins in year 2 are made than year one, more in year 3 than year 2 and so on

ok lets delve into this
you could have two options
letting max increase of coin be 0.0262% a day(10% a year)
that way you dont need to hoard for a year to hit threshold of getting a 10% increase
or the utxo has to accumulate an age of 365days to win the 10%
meaning not everyone will get interest due to the need to spend to live factor

mechanisms such as looking at age of utxo to calculate days since uxto creation where at the spend it results in the 'change'(new utxo you keep) include the increased amount. which is something that can easily be validated by a network

expanding on your idea
someone that spends money 2 times a day and gets equal returned back.
obviously wont have qualifying utxo of +1day age between spends so earns no 0.0262% interest
where as as someone that waits 3 days before spending gets 3x 0.0262%

which could present as a system of slowing down peoples spontaneous spending (buying something just coz they seen it/want it that day) and instead make people plan spending habits more

Quoting for posterity.  Pretty sure it's the first time you've conceded that point.



If they could do that, there wouldn't have been a scaling debate to begin with.  People chose to run some code that you disagree with.  It's as simple as that.



Bitcoin has no concept of your beliefs of what "should" or "shouldn't" happen.  And if it did happen, then consensus made it happen.  You just don't understand consensus.



You have plenty of choices:

1) Run a client which supports SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules
2) Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules
3) Run a client which supports SegWit and proposes a change to consensus if a given activation threshold is met, hoping that others run the same client
4) Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and proposes a change to consensus if a given activation threshold is met, hoping that others run the same client
5) Run an SPV client and have no input on consensus rules
6) Run some code you wrote yourself with whatever new consensus rules you like, to form a new network consisting of one deranged lunatic all on his own
7) Run some code you paid someone to write for you with whatever rules you like, to form a new network consisting of one deranged lunatic all on his own
8) Run a node for a crappy fork like Bitcoin Cash, since it's clearly more closely aligned to your utterly misguided values and will have more than one lunatic for you to proliferate a chain with
9) Run into traffic, get hit by the largest possible vehicle and know that you won't be missed

What other choices would you like?  Pick one and STFU.  



We've already established that you don't understand consensus.  All you have are worthless opinions which don't matter.  And the worthless opinions of a hypocrite at that, because you continue to use the network and follow the consensus rules you claim are "fake consensus".   Like it or not, you're still here, so clearly it can't be as bad as you claim.  



It doesn't matter what I think, that's quite literally how it works.  If you try to run code which is incompatible, you won't remain synced with the network.  If my node is running code that defines your node's network magic as incompatible, it will refuse to serve new blocks to you.  You will then have a different version of the blockchain to Bitcoin's network and you will be forced to form a network of your own.  You've witnessed it do precisely that and yet you still deny that's how it works.  It happened right in front of you.  But you act as though it didn't.  All that's left to determine is if you're blind, stupid, or psychologically detached from reality.



My understanding is demonstrably more sound than yours.  Your own words above prove that you do not understand consensus because you can't accept what you've seen with your own eyes.  Nodes don't get disconnected unless someone configures their node to disconnect certain nodes.  I'll repeat again, people chose to run some code that you disagree with.  Accept it and move on with your pathetic existence.



That much is apparent.

this is where you get things wrong
well i know deep down you used to know this stuff.. and now your just either incompetent, ignorant or just trolling

2. does not follow the current consensus rules.
what they get from a segwit compliant node (dev buzzwords not mine) stripped/segregated/ downstream version of the blockchain that has no witness data. thus they cannot validate or verify those transactions
they also are not deemed worthy of being part of the unconfirmed tx relay peer system and not part of the seeding of the initial block download for those wanting to get the blockchain. due to lack of having full data

3&4 no longer require what you describe
funny part is for years i have been telling you that the 3&4 you describe now (which is consensus) but then you refuted that was consensus by saying that its not consensus and that devs can throw in code as they like without needing the vote.
much like you just done a couple posts above

you know that 2017 and this year segwit and taproot and full-rbf activated without the need of real vote of a mass upgrade requirement pre-activation.. . due to their mechanisms they put in to slide in activations without needing majority node readiness

you love the feature of not caring about node readiness
you love the fact that nodes are not seeding the blockchain to new peers(you love the stripped data mechanism and pruning)
you love the mandatory activation of rejecting opposition in 2017. and you love the validation bypass mechanism of 'treat blindly as acceptable' (without validation if certain opcode is used in tx) for older nodes

stop playing dumb to cause an argument that you have kept losing every time.

the blockdata and code proves my points.. but you cannot prove your point

so just accept finally for the 5th your you have no code or blockdata to support your cries. and instead stop arguing to pretend your the victim with lots of friend that agree with you.

you are just a social queen with no data to back up your game apart from  quotes that cant be backed up by data

now grow up once and for all

Yes, option 2) does follow consensus rules.  Stop trying to change the definition of consensus to mean "only allow the things that align with my personal beliefs" because that's not what consensus means.  If you think that's what it means, you're going to be frequently disappointed.  Also, option 2) is still a valid choice when you stated unequivocally that "user nodes have no choice".  So, wrong on every front so far.  Let's continue...



I see.  So, in essence, you just want to quibble about opt-in, backwards-compatible features, because you despise freedom.  And, rather perversely, believe that others having freedom to opt into new backwards-compatible features somehow impinges upon your freedom.  But the only way that would make sense is if you believe you have the freedom to deny freedom to others (which is certainly possible, given that you really are that fucked in the head).  

You want to (seemingly deliberately) conflate 'agreement with willing participants' and 'overall consensus rules'.  If you actually understood consensus (and clearly you don't), you would know that the consensus rules are the ones that determine the validity of the network and the blockchain.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Features can be implemented in such a way that won't break consensus rules, but still allows willing users to take advantage of features which other users have no interest in using.  Anyone rational would call that a good thing.  What's your malfunction?

More to the point, why do you continue to use open-source software when literally anyone can introduce a backwards-compatible feature and there's literally nothing you can do to prevent it?  "pEoPlE sHoUlDn'T bE aLlOwEd To CoDe ThAt".  Unenforceable.  You have no answer to it.  You clearly despise it being the reality of the situation and you fully recognise you are powerless to stop it from happening time and time again.  Why don't you find a closed-source project where people don't have the freedom to make changes that cause you to spend the rest of your sad life pissing into the wind and achieving nothing?  Again, you will never find what you want here.  Because what you want is to deny freedom to others.  You are inhuman garbage.



I've got code you despise.  It functions perfectly well.  Loads of people use it.  You have no code you approve of.  Everything you like only exists in your imagination.  Therefore, you've got it backwards yet again.  It is you that has no code.

locking topic until the malicious troll forgets where he is and what he was trying to say (as always) and returns to his hobbit home of his favoured subnetwork


READ YOUR OWN WORDS

" Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules"

how can you say something is following the current segwit rules if it doesnt support segwit!!

also
how can you say something is following the current taproot rules if it doesnt support taproot!!

if it doesnt support it they are not validating things they dont understand. they are just BLINDLY using an opcode trick to accept without verifying the transaction..
thus they are not following the consensus rules becasue they are not verifying all the rules because they dont have all the rules to verify everything. they are no longer full validation nodes

YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS
DEVS ADMIT THIS
so its time YOU ADMIT IT TOO
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#backward-compatibility
(treat as checked without actually checking)

this applies to taproot too
nodes that do not support taproot do not know the code/rules needed to verify taproot so are (by use of opcode trick) told to accept it unchecked)

PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH!!

again a segwit compliant node strips/filters out (witness)data and gives the unsupported node a block that has less data than a segwit node has

the unupgraded node then doesnt verify segwit transactions and just blindly gets told to keep data unchecked.
those unupgraded nodes are down rated as less then full node. and not treated as good source nodes for IBD

---

true consensus is about agreement by the masses to then activate a feature becasue the masses agree they are ready to accept the new rule

however the mandatory activations, the backward compatibility stripping/filtering of data and the op-code tricks means those not upgrading are not voting at all. they are simply downgraded out of being full nodes and the features are activated without their need to agree/consent

true consensus for emphasis one more time because of your ignorance it needs repeating
was that rule changes did not happen new features did not happen unless the mass of nodes were ready to fully verify new rules new data. as thats the whole point of a secure network

your desires of a network of nodes that are not fully verifying and not needing to fully verify and not keep full archive data while in your stupid eye want too pretend they are still "full nodes" is your incompetence of understanding network security, code, protocols, rules and consensus requirement

how go do some research and stop being a corporate defence troll, at the expense of weakening the network