Bitcoin Forum

Hello. I am interested in learning about "The blocksize war".

I have been in Bitcoin since 2020, and therefore, I don't know the history before 2020. I know that it was a "debate" regarding the block size, but I want to read details about it.

I can google it, but I don't know who to trust. So, knowing that there are many knowledgeable people in this forum, could you tell me more about this period?

Of course, any relevant website, video, article is more than welcome.

I don't know if anyone would be interested in digging up all those discussions from 2015 to 2017. There's a book on this that's available on Amazon and the reviews are pretty high. You may want to check that out if you want to save time from searching. I'm not forcing you but if you're interested then https://www.amazon.com/Blocksize-War-controls-Bitcoins-protocol/dp/B08YQMC2WM

I will order it. My primary goal is to educate myself in technical aspects of bitcoin. I believe that it will be beneficial to read the arguments of both sides.

Naah, The blocksize war is an old-fashioned topic. Typically I am not sure why you are asking for it again is it just because of the recent ordinals Block crisis? For that even you are late. OP Block size is more than enough for now. What I am observing from the current developments and the global institutional interests Hash War, or you can say Reward War for Bitcoin is gonna be a hot topic. It is already discussed by different views but in coming years it will be the highlight of the industry.


Well, I respect your motive still.. Lets see what other have  to share on it.

I am asking simply because of curiosity. I want to read about it, because I really have no clue about it. Simple as that.

Quick summary:

Some scammers wanted to create a new coin using bitcoin name.
They first tried to impose their idea to bitcoin (increase block size), but that idea was rejected by the  majority miners.

So they forked the coin and created  a new one, called bitcoin cash. Later on, they did anoyhert fork and created another coin, bitcoin sv, whose founder is the faketoshi.

Those fraudsters made a lot of money in both forks.

---

Later on bitcoin community created the Segwit upgrade, which created the concept of Block weight  , virtually increasing Block size without reducing decentralization.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segregated_Witness

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy

This forum has a search function, everything was said here as well.

What do you mean "rejected by the majority of miners"?

If a miner decides to change their code on their unique mining device, the changes wouldn't be accepted. I get that.

But if many miners decide to change their codes, do they need to be more than 50% of the total mining power to be able to do whatever they want?


How? From who? Sorry for asking, I am completely ignorrant on how this thing could work. I find it extremely stupid. Pardon me...

If a miner  wants to reject a new consensus rule, he just won't include blocks with that rule.

Miners vote with their processing power. And the longest chain, with more processing power, is always the main chain.

As bch chain (with the rules reject by the majority miners) was not the longest, that chain became a forked chain and a new coin.

It is all written in the Bitcoin white paper and in the links I showed you earlier.

It's also worth noting that the BCH chain barely survived its first few blocks because the hashrate was so low.  They had to implement EDA, or "Emergency Difficulty Adjustment" (effectively a cheat to artificially lower the difficulty), in order to keep the chain alive and make it easier to find blocks.  These forkcoins were vastly inferior from the outset.


//EDIT:

Public Notice:   Any threads about blocksize are invariably targeted by notorious forum troll franky1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=65837).  He will spread lies and disinformation about historical events because he hates Bitcoin developers and has absurd notions about how Bitcoin should work.  He is incapable of honesty.  Do not take anything he says at face value.  He will try to blind you with pseudoscience and technologically illiterate gibberish.

bitmover has not got any responses correct

firstly several teams(not core) wanted to upgrade the bitcoin network in ways that would allow more transactions per block by increasing the blocksize.(the REKT era) core and their sponsored PR groups viamently fought against anyone not part of cores leadership of devs and their roadmap plan.

core(and their sponsors) wanted to upgrade to mess with scripting byte counting and formats to activate a feature that would allow other subnetworks for corporate middlement fee grabs. this feature also allowed fatter signature(script)space.. thus extending the blocksize.. BUT not really resulting in more multiples of transaction counts.
and thats the jist of the war.. both sides not getting consensus(mass vote) in 2015-mid 2017

 core proposed in mid 2017 a method to implement their upgrade that did not need majority users vote to activate cores method (due to 9 months of lack of even 50% demand for cores idea.. (nov2016-july2017))
the network upgraded eventually(unnatural 100% compliance in just a matter of weeks) using a mandated blackmail event(NYA agreement) which caused the fork. those that were on another team slinkered off to live on the fork caused by core and adapted their fork into something different due to realising core (emphasis on their name) became centralised powerhouse no one can fight

it did not require miners to write new code themselves.. instead it was core devs and their corporate sponsors that wrote code demanding that mining pools had to flag a new signal to accept the core upgrade or be rejected and forked off the network

core accomplished their goal

it was not a other team caused the fork. it was not average joe user nodes, it was not miners that wrote the code for segwit. it was corporate sponsored core devs that wrote the segwit code and blackmailed the wider community to comply or have their blocks rejected. where the corporations(NYA agreement) were the majority economic services everyone uses so had to follow or not have their coins seen by those services.

the mining pools did not even need to run the segwit code, they just needed to flag a bit of data in a block header that they were complying to avoid rejection.
the users nodes didnt need to pre-run segwit code to cause activation neither

i now expect certain cultish behaviour people to scream and cry their mantra of how they want to promote core as the saviours and leaders and how anyone going against core are agaisnt bitcoin.. and must be ignored, banned and told to f**k off

no
people can still admire bitcoin but despise cores centralist methodology, because bitcoin as a previously promoted decentralised network should not be complying to a central power house of blackmail. and no this does make those despising core be pigeon holed into supporting the forked team. nor does it mean anyone that wants to promote how core gained too much power should be told to shut up and just obey the cult mindset as a blind follower

You have not been in this space back in days of Blocksize war and Hashrate war so you can study about them backwards. Start from today, you will discover that most of forked coins from those wars now are dead coins.

Explore these wars and their consequent forks with How many Bitcoin forks are there (https://forkdrop.io/how-many-bitcoin-forks-are-there)

A biggest Bitcoin fork in history is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). They tried to scam Bitcoin community and investors but a few years later, that blockchain network has considerable drop in hashrate and its value can not catch BTC value.

See Historical hashrate chart for BTC and BCH, make your conclusion. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html#alltime

Their forum is dead too

Regardless of all that war and disagreements that have occurred what matters is the end result.

The result of this war is clear to everyone on the ground, as we see the (original) Bitcoin in exponential growth because it is the most decentralized and safest, while all the currencies that chose another path and were divided by Hard Fork are almost dead.

It is important to remember that it gave birth to two coins Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV because it's about the blocksize being limited. That "war" made hard forks from BTC and it's been that ever since. Don't go trusting any of it. It's still better to use and buy BTC. That Bitcoin SV definitely not gonna be good because of the faketoshi.

I think a lot of people made a lot of money because of those forks, so maybe it's the thing that some people are thankful?

Man you know you are old when you remember the days of crazy Roger Ver screaming at the camera in his hotel room saying “It’s Bitcoin CASH!!!” Not BCash, don’t call it BCash. And then he gives the camera the finger.

Surprisingly these days we don’t have these block size wars anymore. I guess people accepted and aside from the Ordinals, fees were low for most transactions.

It's an expensive game, and in the past few years, apparently no one could afford to try something similar. However, it should be kept in mind that fork wars are not something that is a thing of the past, especially in the case that the spot BTC ETF is approved in the US, which in combination with what BlackRock stated in this context means that at some point in the future no one should be surprised with some new fork that will be backed by a fund with a capital of several trillion $.

Having lived it and watching what happened, I would recommend you look into the New York Agreement, who the players were, what they agreed upon as a compromise and why it went wrong. Then look at the comments of the developers after segwit was activated and their tune completely changed, trolling those who were dumb enough to trust them while being proud of their toxic behavior. That in a nutshell is why Bitcoin’s dominance isn’t >90% right now.

You don't have to trust any of us and you definitely shouldn't. Whatever you're going to receive in this thread would be sprinkled with tons of FUD. If you want to get the most objective view, look at BIP102, BIP103, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin XT. Those are several of the proposals and softwares that permitted block size increase. In addition, you should see the whole fiasco about the User Activated Soft Fork which is part of the series of events that precipitated the adoption of SegWit.

Segwit was ready, and make no mistake it is still in effect a block size increase indirectly and still increased the TPS of the network.

You would realize that tons of politics were at play and there were tons of disagreement among the key renowned developers and community figures. You would have to skim through the mailing list as well and come to your own conclusion.

SegWit activation and BCH fork ends "the blocksize war", so you might also want to read this article, The Long Road To SegWit - Bitcoin Magazine (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality).


While that book have good rating on Amazon, have you read that book?


BSV isn't part of "the blocksize war" though since BSV forked from BCH in November 2018, while "the blocksize war" ended on late 2017.

It is interesting that almost everyone remembers the "block size war" as the end of it in 2017 and with the shitcoin called bcash. In truth this "conflict" about scaling bitcoin lasted at least 5 years and it definitely wasn't just bcash versus bitcoin with only 2 sides. There were many sides or better said many different proposals for different approaches which we may categorize in a simple way into 2 or 3 categories.

1. The group saying bitcoin should scale using the second layer and should not have a hard fork.
2. The group saying bitcoin should only scale on-chain (layer one and only layer one) by hard forking to a bigger block size
3. The group saying both at the same time. This was short lived and was very messy mainly seen in SegWit2x which had its own separate issues.

Of course this is an oversimplification since for example the second group consists of many different approaches like one saying we should have a one time fork to a massive block size while another saying we should let the miners choose to change the size at any time they wanted, etc.

Read "The Long Road To Segwit: How Bitcoin's Biggest Protocol Upgrade Became A Reality" by Aaron Van Wirdum. He's definitely the most trustworthy person you can find that wrote about the subject-matter.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

That write up will give you the history, what caused the "Scaling Debate", the context why, and why the the Core Developers chose the path where we are today.

Bitcoin.com has gone full scam and is now promoting Ethereum and a Bcash sidechain called Smart BCH in order to keep scamming people by selling them worthless tokens on their Uniswap clone called Verse DEX. They created their own token, where insiders like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu, were given early access through a private sale. Bcash's leaders will quickly abandon their principles at the first opportunity they see to make a quick buck. These people never cared about scaling, they just wanted to grab power for themselves so they would be able to build their scams on Bitcoin.

Thank you.


Yeap, that's what I thought.

if you actually read the block data of which flag bits in blockheaders reached which thresholds to trigger which events, you will see it was actually the NYA agreement that triggered segwit activation.. they just back tracked on the later promise of the 2x base limit.. becasue their actual agenda was just to get segwit activated using the blackmail of rejecting blocks that didnt display their flag bit in blockheader

if still unsure who to believe.. check the immutable blockchain data.. and which bits were associated with which proposal method of activation

https://preview.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png?auto=webp&s=afa6cb1e663628eaca7fa5785bef5af92d9d7f91

the blue line(NYA) https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
 needed 80% which then triggered the red line(segwit) to then reject non compliant blocks and achieve the unnatural 100% because all outliers were rejected leaving only compliant blocks being seen

note how segwit didnt even get 50%(upto july) demand until the blackmail of the mandated activation was a thing
note segwits unnatural clean linear line to 100% . its unnatural has no wiggles due to the block rejection campaign of the mandated activation proposal triggered due to the NYA agreement
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77


other thing to note.. the other proposal of a UASF didnt even get 20% at all..


the reason why core were demanding segwit activation before november 2017 is because they were sponsored to make segwit(a feature to offer gatways to corporate subnetwork of middlemen payment charging routes) which had a deadline of from november 2016-nov2017 to activate or the core devs wont get their bonus

the NYA group are ofcourse the corporations that sponsored the core devs in the first place for segwit. rather than a rival.
the 2x element of NYA plea was never coded and was always an empty promise. just a false promise attempt to garner more support for what they really just wanted.. segwit

I would add segwit. Which virtually increased block size and was not implemented in bcash and other forks.

It is somehow a on chain scale.  So now we have on chain and off chain scale solutions, with lighting network

SegWit falls under the first group (main scaling should occur on second layer and the first layer should scale without hard fork), otherwise you are right that SegWit also offers an on-chain scaling by increasing the block size but it is through the soft-fork as I said in the first category which makes it a limited scaling.

It's a bit off-topic but bcash has implemented more of SegWit than you know. From the SegWit way of transaction serialization for sighash all the way to the bech32 address format. :)

Plus be careful of those trolls and charlatans who will gaslight you and spread disinformation that will sort of look real and would look like they make some sense. When in doubt, you can always reach out to trustworthy people like Aaron Van Wirdum and others through Twitter.

https://twitter.com/aaronvanw?lang=en

Some of them will reply back, others won't, but it's important not to fall in the mind-trap of the Anti-Bitcoin-Trolls who will pretend to be Bitcoiners but are actually playing 4D Chess. Always reach out and good luck to your Bitcoin journey!

The Tragedy of the Commons (game theory) occurs when individuals, acting in their self-interest, deplete shared resources to the detriment of the entire community. In the case of Bitcoin, larger block sizes might lead to more transaction throughput but can strain the network and decentralization.

For example: In the IPv4 protocol, IP addresses are used to uniquely identify devices on the internet. However, the pool of available IPv4 addresses is limited, consisting of only ~4.3 billion addresses. As the internet has grown exponentially and more devices are connected, the demand for IP addresses has increased significantly. Various organizations, internet service providers (ISPs), and businesses require IP addresses to allocate to their customers or devices. Initially, IP addresses were allocated freely, and there was no strict regulation on their distribution. However, this led to a situation similar to the Tragedy of the Commons. As for today the price of every IPv4 address is ~$50.

As of today, the consensus in the Internet network is that each individual does not need to create their own ISP. Instead, each person rents a communication channel and rent IP from one of approximately a million of ISPs. Similarly, a similar consensus could exist in the Bitcoin network, where access to the Bitcoin network is provided to anywhere from one to eight million individuals or companies, while the remaining eight billion people would either rent access to the Bitcoin network or lease open channels in the Bitcoin Lightning Network or rent another L2 Bitcoin solution.

when in doubt. trust the blockchain data as arbitrators. not some idiot on social media that makes a blog.

read what the block data shows as the timeline of events,  not some social queen

But it's worth noting that blockchain data alone leaves out a significant detail.  Intent. 

A hard fork proposal was announced by Bitmain prior to the activation of SegWit.  This is all very well documented (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitmain-responds-uasf-another-hard-fork-announcement), but certain disinfomation agents like franky1 continue to sweep it under the rug because it doesn't fit their agenda or their attempts to distort history.  The declaration was always there that a hardfork would take place if SegWit were likely to activate.  And thus, BCH happened.

Bitmain wanted nothing to do with SegWit because it was a threat to their business model.  They were always going to pursue the existence of a blockchain where SegWit was not activated.  See the ASICboost controversy (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions) for further detail.  It's clearly a lie for franky1 to insinuate that the hardfork was anything to do with the method by which SegWit was activated.  Whether it had been NYA, UASF or Core's original proposal, Bitmain would have been pushing for a hardfork regardless.

But since franky1 is a sociopath, he will now proceed to come up with some more ridiculous technobabble about how his delusional version of history is somehow accurate (it isn't).  I hope everyone enjoys the rest of this topic getting thoroughly derailed because franky1 is an obnoxious piece of shit who won't accept reality.

note: all the drama queens use drama of blogs to talk about drama.. but ignore the actual block data that refers to bytes of data that refer to code and rules and reason and triggers of changes of rules..

yes there were many debates and attitudes.. but when it actually boils down to what actually occurred and what actually changed and what actually caused what.. rely on the code, and the blockdata

everything else is just social drama of who thinks what opinion belongs to be more important to them..
the blockdata will teach you which parts were important to the network and protocol rules and reveals how certain things had natural selection and some had unnatural selection.. which due to the blockchain being immutable it cant be edited and twisted by social drama.. trust block data not a opinion blog

the real social drama queens do not like their agenda of ass kissing a common cultish group being dismantled. so they turn things into REKT campaigns to try making those against their agenda disappear..

the best way to fight against social drama queens is to rely on facts.. and leave the queens to flap about making themselves look like idiots changing their scripts and try different ways to ass kiss their cultish narrative agendas of blind faith, following and trust of a centralist group humans they want to treat as immortal gods

He knows the facts, and he doesn't truly deny it. It's not about "accepting it or not", it's about playing 4D Chess and gaslighting people into questioning what the actual facts of actual reality is. It's really wicked. To a newbie, the wall of text full of techno-babble will look like, "Oh he probably is very smart", without verifying if all that he has been saying is true.

To the newbies who are too lazy to DYOR, you should just look at franky1's trust-rating and read what gmaxwell and Achow said about him.

yes do your own research (windfury just quotes his mentor(doomad) like a robot, never actually attempts to learn how things work for himself) they love to agree and defend each other and ignore facts.. whatever doomad beleives, windfury defends to the end

learn WHY gmax said what was said.. because it was doomads disciples that cried to him years ago with their social drama
they were the ones that put the useless trust rating system into negative.. and now they pretend its their ammo to say im wrong becasue of it.. reality is they use social drama to control the narrative and not actual data, code backed evidence

so they and all readers of this forum should do actual research using block data that does not lie. compared to their social quotes of the people they enjoy..


i do laugh that windfury is using a blog post as his evidence and yet the world can see the blockdata header bits and also code to see what actually happened.
a linear(straight diagonal) jump from 45% to 100% in just weeks, after wavering for 9 months shows something unnatural happened in july 2017. .. especially when 100% acceptance of anything in a decentralised world is unnatural. even core devs think that 100% majority acceptance is an unachievable threshold to set for activations. because unnaturally it will never get it.. unless forced, coerced, miscounted. ignoring the non voters, abstainers, objectors

but hey.. seems certain idiots believe certain peoples opinions way above data, statistics, code and math

try to stick to immutable data, math, logic, code as the true source of facts of bitcoin history when doing research. not the social drama of fangirls of a corporation that wants to promote empty promises. (empty promises still not met 6 years later)

Aren't you bored already with that line? You've been spitting that every time you're losing an argument. "Do YoUR owN ResEArCH!". Research what. Give us to understand. Talk to us, not at us. Use links, quotes, whatever.

Tell us what he said. Where he said. Why he said. Give us some context.

Give us the fucking block data that is gatekeeping the truth. Please. Something more than utter girly whining.

you dont have blockdata? shame, you should not have been talked into pruning by your mentor doomad.. i guess he doesnt want you having the blockdata, i wonder why

as for explanations.. i even made it easy for you.. scroll up, you will see a visualised image of the block header bit flags of the events.. you can verify it with blockdata, which you can find in a full node..
and no dont be a empty lemming trying to get me to paste all of 2017's block data into a forum post. because, unaware to you its alot of data.. you can however very easily do your own independent research and verification.. you first just need to avoid your mentors advice, and instead be a proper bitcoin node user and have the blockdata(as thats where you will find the block data) and then you can check it out for yourself

also if i was to just paste block data into a forum. you wont look at it, you will instead just auto reply a cry that you cant trust it.. so only option (the rational option) would be for you to run a full node and get your own copy of blockdata from diverse nodes thus you cant cry that im spoonfeeding you info for you to ignore/distrust

and thats the wonderful think about blockchains. you can actually independently get blockdata from diverse nodes thus not have to trust a single provider, try it, it will be a new experience for you

if you then want to cry about not finding code.. well source code can be found on github. so go research there too

i would have thought after the number of years of your existence in this forum you would have learned by now where to find blockdata and code.. rather than what appears all you have learned is to only find out what you can repeat is from your mentors forum post content

so usea full node and look at the blockdata. dont rely on blog/forum posts. actually do the research from the source, then you can verify social posts accuracy..

rather than your current method of just wanting to believe a social media user on face value you get your troll army of like minded people to cry t moderators that you are not getting your way in life

its been years. its time you learn, not just repeat the agenda of your mentor

The diagram might be correct, and as the NYC and the miners activating segwit are concerned, they can be verified, indeed. The UASF, though, cannot be confirmed, as that votes weren't timestamped anywhere. I'm still unable to see where the blackmailing is.

For your info, I'm running Bitcoin Core v24, and I've been running a full node (or full archived node as your little head comprehends) about two years now. You, on the other hand, are questionably even running some Bitcoin client (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5348270.msg62613975#msg62613975).

Block data alone doesn't give readers of this topic any insights into mining hardware manufacturers announcing a unilateral hardfork.  Block data alone doesn't explain how a particular forkcoin refused to change its network magic and would have left Bitcoin users at risk of replay attacks.  To truly understand the history, an individual reading this topic would need at least some context by which to understand the data.  You are in complete and total denial of the real reasons why things changed.  

BCH devs stated their intentions and wrote their code.  They declared their fork was going ahead and they took all the necessary steps to enact their plans.  In response, Bitcoin developers were compelled to act in order to mitigate the damage which those (highly irresponsible) BCH devs would have caused if left unchecked.  Deny it all you want, but that's what happened.  Cause and effect.  Action and reaction.  You witnessed it happen with your own eyes.  You were there.  But you are either seemingly still utterly incapable of understanding what you saw, or you do understand it and you're in denial.

Also, what is it you even hope to accomplish if you did manage to convince some gullible newbie to believe your elaborate little cover-up?  Are you lonely?  Do you need someone as equally unhinged as yourself to be paranoid-delusional with?  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you thought this was how you made friends.  Do you think if you lie to people enough that they'll eventually join you in your wonderful little land of make-believe?  ::)

Absolute freakshow.

funny part is by knowing the mandated code, date, and block header bits invoolved in all the proposals. (which i told your cult to research), and the blockdata they can read it and learn.. and piece it all together to finally understand

and realise the trigger dates of which events caused what to happen. to realise that the hardfork was actually from the NYA+core (segwit supporter group) ignoring certain blocks abstaining from voting segwit in.  which then caused the non flagged blocks to go out in a different direction. thus it was not some other group doing something to unilaterally split, its blocks being ignored/rejected by NYA+custum core code.. where other group NOT DOING ANYTHING(abstaining) seen blocks non segwit flagging

even you just admitted they didnt even change the network magic..
because they didnt want or cause the split..

ill make it simple.. the segwit supporting groups changed code.. the non segwit supporting group did not change code.. so you cant say the segwit abstainers caused a fork

it was the core+NYA side that ignored blocks(using custom code)

get it yet
if not read more code, read more blockdata.. and also your idol (gmax) admitted to the split.. he branded it with his buzzword a bilateral split. so before you start next pretending it was not caused by segwit side to pretend there must not have been a hardfork at all.. you would be wrong yet again because it was a hard fork. caused by the segwit activation games. not those abstaining from supporting segwit

if you dont know where to find block data or code or know how to read it. well try learning how to. do some research

the point of DYOR is partly do research. but also YOUR OWN. meaning actually put some effort to learn for yourself instead of seeking people that agree with your pre-existing opinion based on social nonsense

rely on actual source data. not a buddy of yours that agrees with you..
confirmation bias is not your friend, stop relying on it

the blackmailing is the MANDATED ACTIVATION caused by ignoring blocks that abstain from flagging segwit. funny part is you and i have discussed this many times and i have even linked you the the code.
you will notice on the chart the absolute unnatural linear straight line. of 100% is showing that the nodes only kept segwit flagging blocks and rejected (left unseen) any abstaining blocks

a full node is FULL meaning full featured. meaning archiving and verifying. hense the term FULL
ability to deactivate archiving came much later(recent years) thus full by default is archive and verify..
turning archiving off is not full.. becasue you are offering less peer services to other nodes..
LESS services is not FULL services

its your forum wife/mentor doomad that has taught you bad lessons that pruned node should be called "full" stop listening to him. he is an idiot and makes you look like one too.

im shocked you asked me where the blockdata is, you seem to be active on the forum for years and todays admission is you have a full node for 2 years, so you should know exactly where to find blockdata, but then again im not shocked your forum wife/mentor did not teach you this basic knowledge.. i hope you have now learned

but now you do know where to find block data. and you have a copy on your hard drive(todays admission by you) you now know where to find the blockdata. so go use it, its why its there, to use
just dont rely on your forum wife for information.. use the actual blockdata and code to direct you. then you dont have to trust or believe anyone. because you can research independently for yourself

So your argument is BCH announced a hardork, officially stated the day it would go ahead and wrote the code to make it happen, because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPLIT?  Is that the level of fuckwittery we're going with now?



*facepalm*

If Core devs hadn't been able to look at BCH's code repository, which they could see forked from their own repository, then they wouldn't have been able to see what network magic BCH was using.  If you try to apply some logic for the first time in your life, you might comprehend that this means the BCH code existed before Core decided to take action to protect BTC users.  Do I have to provide a link to the developer discussion about it again?

Here you go:   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982

BCH code clearly existed first.  They caused it.

There's no need to debate any further because frankandbeans is merely gaslighting.

The big blockers narrative = they didn't want to split from the network but the Core Developers forced "the community", whoever that is -probably Roger Ver and his sockpuppets, to make that decision. THEN he makes the claim that BCash is the real Bitcoin because it's according to Satoshi's vision of a peer to peer electronic cash system.

https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/e4gdc2pn2p4.jpeg

What a drama queen.

But even if he could successfully steamroll over recorded history and re-write it as he wished, what does that even accomplish?  Does he think devs will suddenly start taking orders from him?  Does he think they'll voluntarily make code for the moronic and authoritarian crap he wants?  Does he think that other people here in the community will stop perceiving him as a vehemently toxic sociopath and will want to join his absurd dOuBlE fAsTeR forkcoin which effectively just copies what BCH already did? 

What is the point of anything that he's said since 2016?  What's the goal?

He has to be insane.  It's the only rational explanation.  Nothing he says makes a shred of sense.  It's just lies and delusions built on top other other lies and delusions.  I suppose if someone is a compulsive liar and has a genuine psychological condition, then lying comes as naturally to them as breathing does.  He's just doing what he was naturally born to do.

But yes, no point in trying to argue further.  He's too far gone in the head.

i dont need to steam roll over recorded history.. because this topic clearly shows im the only one using, mentioning and asking people to look at recorded history(blockdata+code).. you trolls of cultish social queendom are relying on human opinion/blog posts of stories that align with corporate agenda of promoting brands and efforts to make bitcoin expensive to use transactionally to push people into using other networks so middlemen can grab processing fees from payments

you rely on blind faith, loyalty, belief and trust in story tellers all then reinforcing each others confirmation bias and forming a team to then discredit those that disagree with your story. to the extent of crying to moderators and wanting to get people banned and then using your own mission of moderation and ban attempts to make it seem those relying on actual recorded history are the ones in the wrong

however when you get old and retire from your campaigns.. the block data will remain to show people what happened.. your story however can only continue if you stay active to recruit idiots to follow you

much like the social drama of pronouns.. long after "they" die of old age.. other people can look at "their" dna and know what gender a person was. even if "they" dont want to admit "their" gender when "they" were alive

the doomad cult of blackhatcoiner, windfury. is a known team of echo chamber playing the pronoun game of causing contention but then blaming others for their contention they cause.. much like pretending the segwit side didnt cause the fork even when it was the segwit side that mandated the segwit activation

and yet i don't see a single piece of block data posted by anyone in this thread certainly not you.  :o i'd even go so far as to say i have no idea what you been talking about throughout most of this thread. your posts have been kinda confusing franky. i think the topic of the OP was the blocksize war. if people knew about the history of it or something like that. you turned it into some type of rant about what you think people should be doing?

Such an unrelenting control freak with so little respect for freedom that he thinks he can dictate everyone's own identity to them.    ::)

The correct pronouns for franky1 are "Nazi/Cunt".

meanwhile science, technology and verifiable data exists to debunk doomads cult philosophies.

check and verify, always the best way