the history can be found and people will read it. no point in you trying to deny it and argue the opposite.
have a nice life and i hope you find something else to social drama about. as its obvious you care not for bitcoin but only care for a commercialised group
I fully encourage people to decide for themselves. If you notice, I provided the link to the discussion about disconnecting incompatible nodes. People should read it.
Here it is again.
Also, not that I ever expect an honest answer from you, but which is it? Devs shouldn't make all the decisions or devs should decide fee policy and force miners to adhere to what the developers think it should be? Your contradictions are not helping the discussion.
the reason i say you deny it is because you intentionally flip flop. one minute you admit it and you admire cores actions, the next you deny it even happened. which is where i keep telling you to do your research and then just pick one of your narratives and stick to it.. as it has become boring to repeatedly have to reply to either your flip or your flop. because it just seems your more interested in causing the flip flops for social distraction
..
anyways
devs should provide an option. and then users should decide.. WITHOUT FEAR of being thrown off the network purely for opposing an option.
if an option does not get approval WITHOUT network throw off's.. so be it. that option simply does not activate. no harm no foul
(EG core should have walked off with tail between legs with their 35% approval, and then come back with an improved compromised version that would have got approval WITHOUT needing to do mandated throw offs)
..
the issue is:
devs dont even provide a VARIETY of options for users to choose. (its just a their road map or no other way)
devs throw other options off the network before an option even activates
devs throw people off the network that dont opt for the version the devs prefer.
also the link you provided PROVES that devs were throwing off segwit2x nodes off the network before segwit2x even got a chance to grow a vote to even have the option of an activation.
and the UASF proved that users got thrown off the network BEFORE segwit1x got activation
...
after an activation. fine. if there is too much orphan drama or ddos spamming bad blocks then fine ban nodes. AFTER ACTIVATION. but throwing people off BEFORE activation purely to get a fake approval vote.. that is not consensus
and that is the thing i have been saying all along.. but wee all know you prefer CORE to remove opposers to fake approval because you love core dominance/dictatorship
P.S
segwit2x nodes would have accepted segwit1x rules so throwing 2x nodes off the network was ZERO percent about security. and 100% about core only wanting 1x activated)
..
thus CORE were in 100% control of what got activated.
yep throwing people off the network BEFORE activation. is not protecting the network because at the point of throwing off the network the feature was not even active to of caused issues. the throwing off was purely to get rid of opposers, to then fake increase approval of a feature only core wanted.
no one should be thrown off a network before the vote is complete
..
again for the umpteenth time.. learn consensus
consensus is NOT throw people off the network to gain approval count
consensus is gain approval count(without throwing people off network) or it just doesnt activate if no majority is found
try to atleast learn consensus and why its a big deal in regards to how satoshis invention is so revolutionary. and how core bypassed it for thier own purposes