(facepalm)
but the community didnt all run it.
segwit activated where by pools did not have to run segwit code
segwit activated where by node did not have to run segwit code

segwit got activated no matter what the community decided.. there was no consensus in august 2017

you and the devs admit to it "compatability" is your buzzword for the consensus bypass
devs admit to it "inflight upgrades" "bilateral split" as their buzzwords

i am laughing that you flip flop so much saying the community agreed. when they didnt
thats stats done lie. segwit only had 35% actual agreement before the bypass tricks

it wasnt just a me vs the world is was 65% vs core. i find it funny that you think its was just me opposing it.
you say it yourself many times the community couldnt veto it.

so end your flip flopping because all your doing is meandering the topic into social drama.

core FAILED the consensus test. november 2016 -summer 2017 (35% not 95%)
but core couldnt take no for an answer. core didnt want to accept consensus so they then bypassed it with the other bip that had a mandatory date where pools and nodes would get banned and blocks rejected.
and where those that didnt vote would be supplied with stripped data, make them second class no longer full nodes.

that was NOT consensus that was tyranny

anyway

a) not to use the summer 2017 bypass bip and stick to the original consensus bip used in 2016(and prior)
b) adding things without network consent...... um ever heard of trojans
c) its not my idea.... 65% of the community didnt want segwit
     also to highlight. i am not controlling or causing any tyranny..
     i have not made code for the community to use. my software is for my use
     code i make has no mandatory crap in it. and does not have any consensus bypass crap

     so to ultimately to destroy your meanders.. there is no point you getting upset by me. all i am doing is talking.
     but it is funny that you think i am controlling/ causing tyranny. and all the other empty insults you make.

anyway even now.. with it fully activated and a year later..
do you see 100% desire for segwit... nope. do you see 50% desire.. nope
the UTXO count. the amount of funds on segwit outputs. the fact that lukejr, sipa and btcc are still asking for funds using legacy addresses.. (thats the real funny)

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button

just holding coins does not mean controlling.
however spending the coins where the funds influence devs or bitcoin businesses to be swayed in a particular direction does create control.
by this 'sway business' i dont mean businesses change bitcoin code rules. but if a business was to only accept 'whitelisted' coins or was told to only accept litecoin.. then suddenly people will see less utility of using bitcoin if they cant spend it with certain businesses.

id say i have more coins than you as i have had a nice hoard since 2012. but i dont flash my stash, because i know my coin hoard has no meaningful control over anything.
thus id say my hoard has no more control than your hoard of coins..

however if i bounty campaigned or VC funded a dev team to change the rules.. then things would become controlled

take DCG.CO having ownership stake in blockstream that coded segwit. ownership stake in bloq that done segwitx2, ownership stake in blockchain.info(ver) that gave opposition the fake "free choice". ownership stake in many merchant/exchanges and payment gateways that formed the NYA agreement. ownership stake in a few other people (USAF)

you'll see that things did change and anyone else was just sheep herded into the change activation via the "compatibility" trick where by not upgrading didnt actually prevent activation. thus people in the general community could not vote/veto/prevent the change.

---

so yea FBI hoarding silkroad funds caused nothing. but spending coins means THEY now have more fiat. to buy more guns and swat raid bitcoin business or send out court orders to sway businesses into doing what the fbi/sec want

thats why we need to ensure we are not reliant on third parties. and not reliant on single team of devs. to avoid us falling into the trap of corruption and monopoly games

this have to disagree with. as there are over 20 "tagged" pools. but even within those tags. theres actually more stratum servers. and different facilities/users. you would be shocked at how diverse things actually are...

but here is the thing no matter how much hash power a block is created with. if it doesnt fit the rules it gets rejected. yep a block could be created with zetahash(1k exa) and still get rejected.
pools dont code the rules. all a pool can do is include or exclude transactions.. not change rules

also the worry of centralisation... via the propaganda of "china 50%"
china dont have 50% no where near 50%

but playing devils advocate. if china did have 50%... pools dont make the rules


ill agree that third party services are controlled by authorities now. but thats because they are tied to fiat. years ago people were thinking bitcoins utility should be aimed at buying products with it. thus not rely on fiat gateways(exchanges).. but the ethos has moved away from medium of exchange and is trying to be pushed to just be a FIAT tied investment of "store of value" for fiat lovers to get rich quick

but for bitcoin to remain safe we as a community should not rely on one team to control the code. and have any other team get rekt. as then the single team controlling the code. become corrupt. (as seen the last couple years)

more doomad flip flopping
EDIT: (shows how now doomad admits consensus wasnt reached and people didnt agree)
LOL.. gotta laugh at flip floppers

one minute, "its community decision.." next minute "there's nothing anyone can do to veto them" next minute "the community all agreed, apart from one person" next minute "consensus couldnt be reached"

anyway lets move on:

we should sheepishly abide by cores law?... do you even hear yourself?
come on.. take 2 steps back..
have an outer body experience of not defending a dev for just a couple minutes
just long enough to hear your own words as if through the ears of someone that doesnt want single control from one group

things WERE different in 2009-2013 where the community did have a choice and things did cause issues and we seen orphan mechanism actually sort out issues.. but now. the lack of orphans show everything has turned to sheep

anyway doomad.. random people just running nodes dont CODE. running nodes doesnt change rules
the rules are CODE
rules can change via code changes that dont require a vote as "theres nothing anyone can do to veto them..."

then the issue is with those that code it.
you cant blame the community if the community dont have a choice.
you cant say the community had agreed if the community didnt have a choice

node users dont make rules. they dont make code. they just follow the rules of those that CODED the rules. having only one team CODE the rules is not freedom of choice.

i have told you that like over a dozen times.. your actually admitting what i said by you saying it tooo..but then you weirdly go into some social drama finger point that because i said it.. its wrong..

so
grand doomad. lord of all things. i applaud and honour you as the sole person that is highlighting that core can and do make changes without community consensus. i applaud you as king of knowledge that you admit that devs have and will continue to delay certain features, but then  rush others. all in the pursuit of their desires because you have highlighted that they should not report or have to listen to the community.

now you had your glory. no need for your flip floppy change of mind to defend a dev.
no need to throw insults
no need to meander topics
no need to finger point at non-devs

but still now you had glory. please go learn about the network and CODE. (atleast just to avoid flip flops and to stick to one side)

local bitcoins does have escrow. just be aware you may not get exact amount, due to fees

these days most will ask for ID and proof of ID such as asking to to take a photo of yourself holding a bit of paper with a message saying you consent to the trade.

this is so that if you tried to get BTC and then try to do a wire transfer reversal(chargeback) AFTER the btc is released to you.. the other person knows enough about you to prove you requested the funds transfer. this is because chargeback scammers PRETEND someone stole their bank login and wire transferred funds out. so by others asking for info is just to stop scammers trying to reverse wire transfers and keep the btc too.

seeing as your a buyer that will use escrow. you cant really get scammed as easily..as the coin is locked in.. usually its the seller that gets scammed even with escrow enabled. but be sure the seller releases the coin to you once you sent yours.

be sure to use a trader with hundreds of trades and 100%. do a quick google/bitcointalk search on their username to see if there is any complaints. such as delay/avoiding saying they received funds

your always going to get varience due to speculation and othr things. but generally "value" is a range of a healthy 2-3x above cost
but as i said in another post. if you take away the speculation of volatility. and look at the baseline.. then you can make good judgement of the range of value that prices will sit within. so i prefer to only concentrate on the baseline.. yea i never care about ATH

when i judge the value growth per year i dont shout out $20k
i shout
2016 always above $300
2017 always above $900
2018 always above $5800

but yea "value" right now is $5800-$20k (centering more around $6k $18k)
depending whether your a buyer or seller is where you will judge "best" value (buyers want low sellers want high)

its not a social decision anymore.
1. multiple choice of differing proposals has been rekt off the network(2013-2016)
2. devs admit to doing inflight upgrades and that the mandatory activation and the people dont vote "due to compatibility"
(august 2017)

yes the devs admit it. which makes me laugh that certain people who want to get people distracted into social drama games of creating memes about people who dont even code... those people are not understanding there is no point in pointing fingers at pools, altcoins or just random scammers that dont code.

3. changes to code, need devs to write it.. if devs chose not to write code things wont change. so devs are at the centre of rule changes. again devs can now add more changes without users needing to upgrade."dont worry sheep its compatible"

..
trump can change laws without national elections.

by assuming its ok let them do it. is not resistance

satoshi(the real one) axiom of resistance was that the network should always use consensus (community majority (u call social decision of node users)) not the inflight mandatory stuff that has been seen to occur last year

bitcoins ethos and axiom of resistance of 2009 to 2013 is not the same as bitcoin now

you can never predict what people will do tomorrow but you can see what they did yesterday and then form a baseline from that.

EG people had 11 months, yep 330 days... yep nearly 8000 hours to decide to sell below $5800... no one bit.
soo many opportunities but no takers. which justifies that tomorrow is unlikely to be the day when someone finally bites. as there is a 330 to 1 odds they wont.

and as new baselines rise. like a 3 month $6100 baseline.. it becomes that much harder for individuals to push against the masses.. where $5800 becomes that much further away

miners will still mine

what should occur is that we move from a ~2k transaction per block. to a 4k transaction per block. to a 8k transaction per block
that way the 'fee' pools gather increases without costing users more.

its the basic math of
dont make 2 people pay 10cent and years later people pay 40cent
but
make 2 people pay 10cent and years later 8 people pay 10cent
that way everyone is happy users dont over pay and miners get extra fee while their reward deminishes

please dont turn this into a "we must remain with floppy disk space per block and charge more per user" fallacy. as thats soo 1990's misconception.
we live in a world where 256gb's is the size of a fingernail.

please dont turn this into a "we must remain with 56kb/s internet per block" fallacy. as thats soo y2k's misconception.
we live in a world where fibre optic and 5g cellular is the current expectation.
(56kbit/s =7kbyte/s = 0.420mbyte/min = 4.2mbyte/block)

..
anyway if we start saying lets not use onchain to transact and only let 2000 transactions occur onchain. the FEE would have to go up eventually.
this would cause even less desire for people to want to transact onchain. thus people stop using bitcoin. they will swap coin for cheaper altcoins when they decide to withdraw out of other networks

then no one is left to use the bitcoin network as it prices itself out of utility. and does so due to lack of onchain innovation.... not due to coin rewards

trying to stay on topic

why do people think social drama, whales, pools and asic manufacturers can change the rules?
the axiom is that bitcoins rules are code. and pools asics and whales dont change code

its like politics
when trump does something bad. seems some people dont say trump needs to change his ways. but instead peoples axioms fail by saying "well its your fault trump signed a sanction/pressed a nuke button"
thus trying to assume trump shouldnt change and people shouldnt resist trump.. but just let trump do what he does my making the axiom into "blame yourself and be a sheep, just follow the law"

the real axiom(logic/common sense) is
people dont get a daily vote to resist state decisions made daily. so how can it be other peoples fault for what trump does..

wright is just drama
the price is just drama
pool hashpower is just drama

non of which can resist changes made to the code


to be able to resist. you first need to know who you should resist.
in politics. its not to resist the voter, or smear campaign the voter. because they have no sanction writing power or nuke button. the power is with the state legislators and trump. so to resist the state, you need to aim efforts at the state. and to offer the voter a option that gives voters a choice so that the state doesnt get automatic 'do as states please' control

bitcoins the same

great response in such simple form

but for your initial ethos:


your "we" should not be involved

i answered your question of how the users can do it themselves
its not just a "mutual benefit" thing
but a "mutual destruction" thing

dont make a service where you want to be a police.. while advertising there are no police.
instead say "its the users own faults. its their funds they both cant agree on"

don't mother people. if they want independent control then they need to independently be responsible

P.S
if they both cant agree.. then the funds just dont move. its not technically lost. its just waiting for an agreement.
they just need to take time. have a coffee, cool off and renegotiate once cooled off.
if they cant. then take another break and then try again

its a case of just let them fight it out using their own hands found at the end of their own arms
but by using a 2-of-2 multisig both sides have an equal fighting chance. because both have fists and one sides hands are not tied

"supply and demand" (facepalm)
PRICE is not VALUE
also the PRICE is not formed simply by supply and demand

what if i told you an exchange has at most times a supply of 50k coins per per exchange and the similar amount of fiat balance day in day out.

you would still see a markets PRICE vary even if there were a fixed amount of sellers supplying coin and a fixed amount of buyers demanding coin.

the variation is not simply supply and demand changes.
its actually
desire and utility(speculation) :- the ups and downs
cost:- bottom line the majority wont sell below
expense:- the top line the majority wont buy for
value:- the minimum sellers would sell for and maximum buyers would buy for

(i personally concentrate on minimum value. as thats something that can be seen easily beyond the speculation)

to those confused by the term axiom
think of it like common sense

An axiom is a concept in logic. It is a statement which is accepted without question, and which has no proof.

craig wright thought he could axiom himself as satoshi..
(make a statement and people will just believe it as true and just say "yea it makes common sense that hes satoshi")
but people own axioms seen that wright couldnt even use his axiom correctly
(peoples own common sense seen that wright didnt even sound like the common perception of satoshi's personality)

i dont mean be a crypto paypal. as thats then becoming a third party/middleman yourself(thus self destroying your initial premiss).

i mean a simple buyer and seller set up their own independent 2-of-2 mutual agreement(multisig)
you just need to signpost buyers and sellers towards each other, without trying to control the funds for buyers/sellers


its like LN. they went from a idea of 2-of-2 mutual agreement. but then added on middlemen(routeing) then more middlemen (factories /watch towers). and now lost the whole point of the niche.

what FULL VALIDATION / FULL ARCHIVAL software choice is there that has no financial connection to DCG. that also offers its own proposal platform for onchain innovation. that has not been REKT/thrown off the network by not following cores roadmap

as for 5 suggestions
1. never use "inflight upgrades" (non consensus required trojan upgrades)
2. never use mandatory accept or get thrown out tactics
3. allow other teams to run on the network as a level playing field of consensus. and not the 'core roadmap or F**K off'
4. if a dev says 'blockchains cant scale people should use other commercial networks' then they have personally failed bitcoin and dont want to develop bitcoin, so reduce their contributer powers to implement code that sways people off the network
5. refer to point 3

take a step back from the UTOPIAN false PR department of DCG

fort knox is for gold deposit accounts that give the ability for new bank accounts to be created without making extra gold withdrawals deposits

YAWN - doomad typical reply to ignore topic and go straight to personal attack
running "compatible" is not agreeing. its being told theres no way to object without being thrown off. seems u forget there was no choice to stop segwit..
P.S your post is proof you did not even talk about the topic of wright and axiom.. like i said YOU meander off topic to then spark personal attack.
again if you dont like my opinion. click the ignore button

for online/delivered products:
to do it without a custodian / escrow (third party)... your service needs to use 2-of-2 multisig
where even the seller needs to put funds in so that if the seller wants his own funds back he has to sign too.

there have been cases of multisig where the buyer is blackmailed into signing a tx of only buyer funded coin, because only the buyer would be at financial risk.

EG
seller "i refuse to sign a 100% refund to buyer. the buyer needs to sign 80% to me or else buyer gets nothing and funds remain stuck and unsigned"(situation of no cost but no loss to seller. but potential gains if blackmail succeeds)

so having the seller at financial risk by seller also putting funds in, if agreement is not made then it becomes more mutual loss for both sides. now the buyer gets to have a say in the agreement as the seller can lose if a mutual agreement cant be made

i say this because many sellers never even have the goods advertised by them and just want to get 'free' coin, by faking delivery and then grabbing coin or blackmail to get coin by forcing the buyer to give them coin even in a refund event.

so having the seller at as much financial risk as the buyer.. sellers would be less likely to do the 'no products but still pay me' scam

for face to face, hand to hand garage sales:
people can pay in standard 'push' transactions. all that need doing is a advertising/signposting map service to show where garage sales are occuring that are bitcoin payment based, because buyers get to see and handle the products and know wher the seller is to slap them with a wet fish if buyer cant get the products

craig scammed the australian government by making a fake trust containing a file of copy-paste public keys (no private keys)
and is in big trouble for that.
he then double downed by getting private investors funds too.
he spiralled into alot of legal and financial issues and is just on a non stop campaign to hope he can ponzi his way out of trouble by grabbing funds from any source he can.

he is trying to make a name for himself hoping it will give him some legal leniency for when the courts gavel(hammer) finally knocks

the old banker excuse.. 'if i go prison thousands of employees lose their jobs, millions of people lose money'
but in the end.. if he doesnt get sorted out soon more will suffer by his games

as for the ethos of bitcoin.
it has changed from the 2009-2013 vision.. but trying to point at non-coders like craig as the controversy. the fingers should be pointing at those that have coded the changes made to bitcoin that have diverted the path away from the original vision
and sorry to say this.. but that would be the core devs

laws can stop businesses from publicly running smoothly but cannot switch off individualised activity. take the century old alcohol prohibition era. or the so called 'war on drugs'

people still got drunk and high

as for axiom of resistance
bitcoin was not meant to become fiat2.0. it was meant to be a second option away from fiat. to de-monopoly fiat as being the only option.
the anarchist ethos (in prohibition terms) is not to say "everyone needs to be constantly drunk and high or else" as an only option to rage against the state.. its simply allowing choice and Independence to be sober or be drunk.

government laws can be made to scream "the only option is to not get drunk/high" but that didnt stop people.
as long as bitcoin remains as a OPEN OPTION that doesnt want to become the only option. then people get to have a choice.

anyone saying bitcoin needs regulation. needs government to tax it, ar truly missing the point of bitcoin