sell your skills for a payment in bitcoin
- get a job
- start a business
- help a friend and ask for btc instead of a beer/coffee as thanks

sell products for bitcoin
- research drop shipping where they handle the warehousing delivery and you just find people to buy the products you advertise
- make your own products
- buy products and resale them

sell your other asset
- have a car? sell it for btc
- have a house, gold, jewels, a working tv? sell it for btc

in heritance
- ask relatives to purchase BTC thats intrusted in a will to be given to you should they pass

users didnt get a vote
only 35% of nodes were segwit. only 35% of blocks were segwit
users didnt have to change anything. they were told everything was "backward compaitble" which if you unwash the word twist is that old clients will blindly accept segwit without upgrading because segwit nodes treat the old nodes as second class(bridged/filtered nodes) the which dont 100% validate because how segwit mutates the data to strip it to a thing that blindly passes old node tests)

old nodes were not rjecting segwit. not because they loved segwit but because segwit passed them striped data to BYPASS rejection.

the actual vote was for merchants and miners
FIBRE stripped out what it didnt like before anyone got a chance to "vote"

any proper nodes that could reject core/segwit nodes would end up just getting manipulated blocks that were stripped to appear as regular old blocks with transactions that blindly pass segwit transactions in the block. or get banned off the network

meaning users had no chance

as for any pools that made blocks that would dilute cores required version flag. core via FIbre and other stuff could reject them easily... meaning the users wouldnt get them to build ontop off to cause some orphan drama... meanwhile what you think are "users" would accept anything either way due to how core BYPASSED it with the stripped block data and threats to miners/merchants


LEARN ABOUT THE BYPASS
(gmax buzzword downstream nodes..... lukeJR buzzword filtered nodes)

you need to read the wishy washy herpa durp code.. they even drew a picture to show it actually happened
..
seriously doomad you can spend forever just crying wrong because wrong. but it seems you need to read some code first and become shocked at the coercion that occured

you can keep on trying to turn a we need diversity into a franky vs doomad all you like... or you can learn about what actually happened from the source. i know you dont want to learn from me so i only offered subtle hints thus not appear as spoonfeeding you.
the data, stats, code, documentation is there. but its for you to do your research.

if not, no point you wasting your time being so defensive against diversity
i do find it funny how entangled you have become in having an opposing mindset to it while pretending you dont. but all you are doing is meandering this topic into a comedy.

........
as for the proposal scenario of EC... again your mindset is "fork core off".. thats YOU saying that
the level playing field would have had oppertinity of having enough node selection/freedom/choice where people select it. it NATURALLY achieves consensus. and nothing gets forked off
again your obsessed with things having to get forked off as the only option
(facepalm)
whomever told you its the only option. i think thats the problem you have been learning from those that are telling you a story
the reality is. if there was no true consensus. no activation would occur. if ther was true consensus. the it activates and life continues on. any node in the small minority doesnt auto fork into a new altcoin. they just get stuck unsynced at a block height lower then the rest. and treated as second class nodes

but yea in a scenario of EC getting consensus would be where core actually listened to the community and maybe done a
core v0.12.a - support EC
core v0.12.b - dont support EC

and for EC to get consensus people that love core and trust core would run v0.12.a thus EC would get consensus and still get the core dev team as their supplier
if a community didnt have consensus for EC. then EC simply wouldnt activate.
remember no other teams but the core roadmap team instigated mandatory dates and bypasses.

i know you were trying to poke a bear to set up a scenario of where EC supports would mandate activation.
 but using real consensus of a real level playing field the separate teams would come to a CONSENSUS by communicating and contributing to a whole network community of to find the middle ground where all teams find that happy g-spot where all teams can happily find pleasure from. without having to rape the network via coercion

bitcoin should be decentralised. but that requires users having choice. without fair open choice, its not decentralisation. its distribution
and dont cry that the choice of stay on network or F**K off is a fair choice. that is not fair choice thats the tyranny of apartheid, the tyranny of nazi, the tyranny of any corrupt unethical system

the implementations were following core
the implementations that were not following core were banned in august 2017
are you now denying the whole august 1st event even occurred?

now do you think random users got to decide. no. they could only follow because there is no alternative level playingfleid full node that would have survived the roadmap plan of REKTness that occurred with things like UASF and NYA bait and switch

do you even understand the word coercion
USAF: follow cores roadmap or node/blocks get ignored
NYA: follow cores roadmap or your transactions wont be seen on the network by list xx of merchants
swx2: follow cores roadmap and we (will fake) also giving 2mb after
anyone else that just didnt change to a core opposer node. just got their node defaulted to being outdated and not a full validation node thus not be able to object to the roadmap. they just became blind to it (dev buzzwords, bridged, downstream nodes)

core only had 35% desire for segwit before the coercion and code tricks.
even now the utility of segwit is low. yea even the then big miners that advocated for cores roadmap are still afraid to use segwit for thier own funds when they get block rewards
consensus can and was bypassed because people were blinding following one group. so that group got to control what consensus should be. they even went as far as lowering the threshold and doing the apartheid tactics of threatening to kick nodes/blocks out the network if they didnt obide by the rule of the roadmap

its literally wrote in the blockchain. you can actually see the version numbers in the blocks and the how things change
you can see it in forum posts, twitter where certain faces promote the tricks to by pass it
you can read it in he code of the bips and in the code for the supposed 'alternatives'

for there actually to be a fair consensus mechanism there needs to actually be diversity/fair choice

even the devs admit their actions. yea they cal it buzzwords.. some call it a unilateral upgrade (i laugh as thats a buzzword of centralism) some call it bilateral split some call it bypassing consensus some call it a controversial fork some call it by many names but by using mandated dates and threats that if you dont follow cores roadmap ur f**ked is saying core controlled the network as all roads led to cor because everyone FOLLOWED core..

users dont control consensus because they just download core because they would get REKT if they didnt.

the stats are there the data is their there. but you can scream it never happened all you like


anyway i know your trying too hard to turn  decentralisation debate into a "someones attacking doomad" social distraction. but the events are what the events are. history can be seen without your cries that it didnt happen.. the stats exist the data exists and even the devs talk about it using their own chosen buzzwords.. i am just simplifying it all that we need to get back to a level playing field of multiple choice of nodes and not just blindly follow cores roadmap
im not sure what your trying to defend but it aint a dcentralised network. you seem too core positive and obsessed with what core should do rather than what a open network should do

blocks on average are only 80% full.. fe's should be a penny
2015 fe's were a few penny and devs said they would do things to bring costs down to a penny/sub penny..

and yet 3 years later, even without blocks being full people are paying 27cents. 5x more than the fee war began

i kinda laugh that people call 27cents a good price. and yet in the many countries that can actually benefit from bitcoin (third world countries) the tx fee of 27cents can work out to be over 5 hours of minimum wage labour.

yes 27cents is better then th few dollars the INTENTIONAL fee war eclipsed to. but that was the plan.. inflate the price to sending spam. make it look like a feature is needed. activate the feature, then stop spamming . and then say the feature caused the decline. .. yet the truth is the feature has done the opposite of helping and it was just the intentional spam that distracted reality of what benefits the network and users

lets just hope the devs sort out the crappy witness scale factor and all the minrelayfee crap so that fee's and transaction per byte and transactions per 4mb can actually be really utilised

the 2013 spike occurred due to a massive jump in mining costs due to the swap from GPU to ASIC
this caused alot of hobbyists who could not afford to buy the gear to calculate its cheaper to just buy coin instead of mine it. so they did

the 2017 spike occurred due to a a certain group of paid devs and merchants having a VC contract to implement a certain feature by november 2017.. they achieved that goal so the VC's had to buy up a load of coin as that was the desired payment method to the dev team

there is no big event to cause a massive buy up. and buy ups dont just happen because they happened previously (the facepalm of trend anals)

as for things like ETF. the companies that have already applied for ETF's have already bought up their reserves. as for any new applications upcoming. most are waiting for first success, so that they can then clone the first success to save time and money of not having to do trial and error attempts. so they are waiting.
along with the main VC funds coming from usa and countries with end of december financial year end deadline. are happy to declare a loss for 2018 to get a tax deduction. and start at instant profit for 2019. so all signs are to not expect much from "whales" before 2019.
however piranha (small fish that bite) could bite their way up the price. but thats going to be a slower process

blockchain and crypto are only great at proving coins are real when the amounts are clear to see and the source of the amounts are clear to trace back

some altcoins (and bitcoin proposals) are having systems implimented where coin amounts are not clear, and this can invite fake coins being created.

these "privacy" tools instead of having
in:  
1 btc
1 btc
out:
0.8btc
1.2btc

instead look like
in
+6
-6
out
+9
-9

where all people can see is the in's calculate to result in 0 and the outs result in 0 to show the ins and outs balance out, and that would be the network rule. that numbers have to balance out to 0 (cancel each other out) but not reveal the real amounts hidden.
many people say that it all works out because those trading get to see the hidden math of turning a in from +-6 to 2btc and the +-9 to be 2btc.

by the network not being able to know what the amounts are breaks the fundimental point of validating value. and it just becomes a bunch of people aggregating data that could be anything.
the person who moves the +-9 to the next person knows the hidden privacy maths of the +-6 but the new person does not.
and the network does not know the math of the +-6 or the +-9  so the person making a transaction using the +- balance to a new person can manipulate things so that the +-9 is actually 6btc total and there is no way in the network of proving otherwise.
this is simply because if the network knows the math of the privacy tool. there is no point having the privacy tool because everyone can see the amounts by using the math.
because the privacy tool math is unique per transaction anyone can alter the math to show the new recipient any amount the tweaker wanted

imagine a 'commitment' that had this
in A =true amount *6
in B =true amount -7
out A =true amount +8.2
out B =true amount -10.2

you could decode that and see the in as being 1btc, 1btc and out as 0.8, 1.2
but only the next recipient gets to see this. all the network does is have a rule that A and B have to cancel each other out to 0
so while the network is happy to set a transaction thats only validation is A cancels b
the user can make a malicious commitment of
in A =true amount *2        (making the value 3btc but still encodes to +6)
in B =true amount -9        (making the value 3btc but still encodes to -6)
out A =true amount +8.2  (making the value still 0.8 and still encodes to +9)
out B =true amount -14.2 (making the value still 5.2 and still encodes to -9)

and no one else on the network can tell the difference or audit it. as all they see is +-6 +-9 so the receiver just has to take the word of the commitment they got is what it is

like i said. if a math commitment was to be fixed so that someone could use that same exact math on every previous transaction to validate it all right back to the source minted coin years before. then privacy is broken and everyone could use that maths to rebuild data of true values clearly displayed.

in short
my examples are very simplified for easy demo and miss out many point.. but the point being:
in a system where everyone uses the same commitment math to decode and validate true value.. there is no point having a privacy tool because everyone can decode it anyway
and if the privacy tool math differs per user transaction. a malicious user can tweak the individual math to fake new value and make the next person think they are getting more or less than what the true value should be. and the new user has no blockchain network audit to tell them any different

so transparency of true value trumps privacy in finance if you want a system of true un-manipulable finance network. whereby the only privacy people should rely on is that their name, and personal life story is not embedded into a blockchain
as soon as a blockchain stores stupid things like numbers that dont represent the true value beneath, and users cannot validate the true value beneath as a network. its no longer a financial blockchain. its just a chain of random data that can be manipulated to the whims of the individual making the commitment(maliciously)

a blockchain is only as good as the data a network of users can separately validate and know for sure thee actual data is true. if users cannot validate true data, they might as well not validate. and thus there is no point of a blockchain. and instead it just becomes a distributed database that is not audited

every person above is completely wrong

there is no accounting of the market cap
there is no actual bank accounts holding the market cap dollar
there is no complicated algo

the market cap is simply the latest price a bitcoin was sold for multiplied by the number of coins in circulation
and that is it.

the market cap is not anything special
i can make a coin tomorrow with 1 trillion coin circulation and sell 1 coin(yes just one coin, ever) for $5 and instantly the market cap of a coin i could make would become $5trillion.

again there is no bank account hoards backing up bitcoins market cap. when someone sells a coin, the buyer puts their money in and a seller takes their money out. exchanges only hold value traders have temporarily until they withdraw it

the exchanges only hold temporarily the dollar of the buy and seller.
not all 17m coins are on the market to sell
and not 17million coins worth of bitcoin buyers on the market at anyone time

---

the volumes(separate category from market cap) do not indicate how many buyers/sellers.
the volumes are just about how many trades are done that day, and done over the multiple exchanges and added up.

but those volumes could be just a few traders buying at X and selling at X+y% to make a small y% and if the price moves down enough the seller buys again at X and if the price moves up sells at X+y% and just repeats.

sometimes the volumes appear higher but are just made up of a few people repeat buying and selling over and over again using arbitrage EG buy at X sell at X+y then see price is still X on another exchange so buy at X move it to an exchange that is selling at X+y then repeat

volumes are not an indicator of population interest or of how many unique coins are being sold.

---

again the 17mill coins in circulation are not all in exchanges so the market cap is a meaningless total
and the volume could be a small amount of traders just arbitraging over exchanges and not unique investor demand

here you go again about the "follow"

yawn
now again show me some node dev teams that have their own BIP proposals that are not "followers"
again your definition of core is that people should "follow"

its not about my idea. its about decentralisation.
you think core being the sole BIP promoter and moderator is decentralised. and that just having followers is decentralised.
you think being a follower is a level playing field(triple facepalm)

wake up to the conversation. please learn consensus
you're concentrating too much on things like EC. as if its the only option thats not cores roadmap. there are many more. the point is not about segwit vs EC.. the point is we need more node teams that have their own proposals platforms so we dont have to jump through cores hoops of core roadmap or F**K off


not true
1. other groups wanting other consensus didnt mandatory activate their proposals.. they never caused their own fork. EG only the core roadmap had devs that done a august 1st mandatory activation with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks to bypass consensus even before the NETWORKS rules changed

2.you keep saying "current consensus".. well even before the segwit code actually activated the core devs and buddies mandated opposers should be kicked off.. WEEKS BEFORE activation.. to fake a vote to get an activation
this was not consensus. nor level playing field

the consensus weeks before activation was rules other nodes and pools would still function and accept.. but the REKT campaign of UASF were not going to let nodes that oppose cores future from opposing cores future. and that at a time where the consensus was still the same.. where having a network split BEFORE consensus changed!!
try checking the code, look at blockchain dates. oh and it was not core opposers that decided to make their own network first. as it was the core/USAF that were being biased. other nodes finally made blocks on a different network hours later. because core buddies didnt want them on the network. even demanding they change their code from the pre august code to make the core opposers become different.
again core making demands and acting like a monarchy.. WEEKS BEFORE CONSENSUS RULES ACTUALLY CHANGED

3. again you say nodes cant get kicked off if they follow CURRENT CONSENSUS
again check the block data and code... nodes were pushed off weeks before rules changed.

4. as for "bypassing consensus" well search out bilateral split. you will see gmaxwell and others talk about it. different buzzword, same event/meaning.
as for "mandatory activation" well search out UASF.. you will see loads of stuff. again different buzzword, same event/meaning

im sorry that i dont use other peoples buzzwords. i use common words that reveal the meaning more clearly
EG i dont call a lightning revocation. a "revocation".. i call it a chargeback. as its a more common word people can commonly resonate to as to what it means. if i said "revocation" people would wonder what it meant. which then becomes a whole meandered conversation in itself trying to explain it

EG i dont call a heart attack. a "mio-cardial infarction". i call it a heart attack, yea doctors may only use the word Mio cardial infarction. but that does not mean there is no debate about heart attacks or that only im concerned about heart attacks because a search shows i only use that term. i just dont be a jargon spouting elitist to convolute a conversation with buzzwords common people cant understand, just to avoid common people from getting involved in a debate

5. in real consensus event you are still on the network. you just have data rejected in a couple seconds. its then up to you to push acceptable data. or remain on the network but stuck behind.
seems you have been misled by thinking there are only 2 options are follow core or make a altcoin..
again it seems you want only core to control the rules...

..
anyway. i do enjoy your comedy moments of trying to distract a decentralisation debate to take thee emphasis of decentralisation becoming lost since 2013 and just becoming distributed code followers but centralised change to code
and also the trying to make it a social drama of "franky1 vs core"
but the reality is the rules are controlled by one group and only distributed to people who only FOLLOW the rules of cores roadmap because those that dont want to just be followers but also offer their own innovations separate from core get REKT

you can spend all century trying to meander the conversation into a personal attack. but that does not change the data or history found on the blockchain and within nodes. that show that there are no other teams offering proposals separate from the core roadmap sheep follower hierarchy. nor are there any data that disproves that UASF was not a thing.

also i can find many posts where you are the one that has said if people dont like whats happened to go make an altcoin or go play with another network. typical BS response

"comeback to $20k value"
"sky rocket".
 is the term for everyone waiting around where it appears nothing is happening. and then suddenly at t-minus 1 theres a sudden blast and then a second later atmosphere breaking heights are reached.

the reality is that those events end in at somepoint things landing back at ground/sea level

however
my imagination is of the waterlevels rising, people enjoying the waves of speculation above the water line but climate change raising the waterline beneath. yea there maybe a tsunami every few years, but generally everyone can see the sea levels and plan when they have to resettle and live at a higher safe level

i dont live ontop mountains or on the moon looking down wondering when other explorers will stand beside me.
i stand at the bottom looking up planning when i need to resettle my life at a new height.

anyway
i would say once the main countries tax year deadlines are over and everyone has done their tax deductables, taking advantage of their 'losses' then 2019 will be the year of profits. so its financially foolish to ignite a rocket of profit while planning to cut down on tax by declaring a loss

im not back peddling. i said on many topics for many years "everyone on level playing field"
but YOU took a one time statement about if core want to be a "reference" then thats a refernce of current rules that other teams can refer to and then other teams can separately build on INDEPENDANTLY

the funny part is. people used core as a reference and then core devs actually went out screaming that other people were using them as a reference... (i laughed at the hypocrisy)

their view of reference is not
open source anyone can use and build on.. but
closed club membership, moderation where everyone needs to follow  the club as reference and not build on outside the club


my point was that reference does not mean core get to be the only central point of new innovation. yea core can offer new innovation. we the network should progress away from core to expand the level playing field into decentralised teams so that there is other level playing field teams at play.. thats not restricting core. thats just not empowering them.. theres a difference
they can still make proposals and innovate. but bing the only source of innovation should change.
again not restricting core. just opening up innovation for others(without REKT campaigns and social hierarchy of defending core as a monarchy)

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it. here ill remind you and embolden it

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse
again you are defending core by asking me to retract a statement against core. (im laughing at that)

try learning consensus. thats all im going to say

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

2. people can still refer to core if they believe only core can provide the cleanest code. but in the same respect they are no longer the only codebase on offer and its for the community to have free choice not sole option

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5
(you cant have 1mb base block unless your node accepts 0.75mb or 0.6 0r 0.5 baseblock)
and so if there is a high majority that is happily with 5 or more then 5mb becomes consensus. and everyone is happier its no longer 4mb because now the baseblock is 1.25mb aswell

and if core become anal and follow lukes desire of 2mb weight 0.5mb base. then people will start seeing luke is being anal and they will avoid using core vLAp (core version with luke anal proposal).

i know your going to cry out that forks will happen.. no. again if a pool chose to make a 8m weight block whil the network ffect is at 4mb/5mb.. the 8mb just gets rejected in under 2 seconds. this has already been seen when a pool made a block bigger than 1mb a couple years ago. it didnt cause a fork/altcoin. it just had its block rejected in under 2 seconds

you do realise that the 20+ pools right now are not all making the exact same block. they are all making 20+ different blocks. its not just a race to the finishline first. its also who fits the rules of consensus

users can have their nodes set to different acceptable values. but the whole network effect of consensus would sort out the mess, and do so in seconds.
my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way. and become less reliant on a dev team to spoon feed changes because the user themselves can change settings.
hopefully we will see that dev teams make software with a "options" tab to allow changes at runtime without needing to download/resync for each and every change

again no one will get 32mb blocks or "gigabyte blocks by midnight". because of network effect. what would happen is if all nodes and pools found that 5mb was a mega majority acceptance. the 5mb gets activated when pools think its safe to risk their time/reward to create a block that the network effect will accept
and they wont just create a 5mb block. they will try a 4.001mb block to see if any bugs pop up (like the berkely leveldb bug)
which if 4.001 doesnt get rejected at network level. then they will try more. again like the climb from below 0.5mb to 1mb.
which history shown

you can learn alot about consensus, if you took time to understand real consensus and not just repeat the same lame "fork" stories that have been debunked years ago. the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

im just surprised no one has taken the dragon tales bitcoin game
http://www.dragons.tl/
of year ago and re-innovated it to be more like second life where you can buy real goods from within the game

1.mining pools are more spread out. take antpool which loads say is "china" fact is they have farms in georgia san fran, iceland.
as for other pools, some are actually in thailand, russia, and other places. seems geography is not OP's strong suit
(you can spot this as antpool uses a separate coin reward address for each facility. if you actually add up the asics and the facilities of their locations. you will see "china" doesnt have as much as you think

10. over 70% of coins moved in the last 2 years (might be worth the OP doing fact checking)

18. & 40  they counter each others points and only 40 is the closest answer.

if it was wanted by consensus. then there would have been no need for a mandatory date. it would have naturally received 95% without USAF with out the bait and switch of NYA and without the REKT campaign.

but nah core only got less than 40% meaning core should have realised their own idea was half baked and gone back to try new ingredients and offer a new cake that the community would want, that would get 95% approval. without any apartheid-esq game play required

as shown doomad has no understanding of consensus. all he can see is forks and altcoins as the only option of multiple nodes brands..

(mega big facepalm)

if he thinks the only route is for brands to throw each other off the network because their code is better.. then he has no clue
the "some risks" links are funny. saying a bit of 2 second orphan drama is worse than a whole network shut down, was the best comedy of he week to read. seems those comedians would prefer a whole network shutdown than a nodes log file just referencing a rejected block after 2 seconds.. (facepalm).. i guess they either dont understand consensus or are just trying to fake news what consensus is by saying it involves making altcoins/forks. either way, pure comedy.

anyway. there is no point trying to teach him because i have asked him nicely many many times to learn consensus and he has just cried out that im telling him what to do.. (as the excuse not to actually learn about real consensus mechanism)

so best to let him live in his world of altcoin making and other coin making code, and not live in a world of a community of a network that contribute, compromise, communicate, and cider everyone part of a community.

i think doomad will do well on other networks as he seems happy advocating for other networks
before doomad cries a new variant of social drama: there is no code to kick doomad off bitcoin. there is no demand dooman F**K off. i just said he would be happy should he choose to go play with other network like the other network called lightning

"break out"

these silly fools drawing random triangles on charts have no clue

today was not a break out day.
in the last month alone the price exceeded $6600 for atleast 9 days. so today is nothing special compared to the other days

it is funny because when you see the triangles they draw, anyone can tip the angle of their lines by a few degree's and it still touches the previous points (because these trend anals didnt draw a good line in the first place) and the end point would change

yes these lines are not based on real world events or data. its just a line someone drew on a chart. like pin the tail on the hand drawn donkey, where they chose where the ass point is and said thats where everyone should pin their targets on

thats not technical analysis, thats preachers asking traders to follow them and set their bots to follow them to make the preachers prophecy become self for-filling

A"today you will break your leg and you will ask me to help you"
B"no i wont, ouch why did u slam a hammer into my leg"
A"i told you you would break your leg, now there is no one around so ask for my help to get you to hospital or ill take ur other leg out"
B"ok help me"
A"to the community i predicted something and it came true"

seems every other day or week someone want to call out something because they drew something on a chart.
funny thing is the last week of september had better numbers than today

using bitcoin as an alternative to fiat is not saying that bitcoin is the nuke button to destroy fiat. but is the underground bunker should fiat ever nuke itself.

the quote windfury picked never mentioned that bitcoin would destroy fiat, but be an alternative safety zone

i understand windfury and his buddies are only interested in bitcoin so they can double their fiat and run back to fiat. but some people actually want something that counters fiat and offers an alternative.
there are many many topics where windfury has shown his desires for managed account services and locked funds and 3-5 days settlements with chargebacks being part of bitcoin..

but bitcoins utility should remain as something that offers something fiat cant

i know you only replied to poke the bear into another off topic social drama discussion about something not related to LN flaws

ill bite.. but remember you, like others are the ones that love to distract the narrative. so dont cry after

firstly. in consensus. things only should upgrade when the network has consensus. (no altcoin creation)
secondly the only reason you think things end in coin splits of altcoins is because you have only seen cores bypasses of consensus but fell for their PR.

the only reason why we didnt have it happen in 2015 as consensus is because core devs refused,
then pretended to agree then backtracked, then got a few of their devs and buddies to fake an alternative choice just to get those who were not blindly following cores roadmap off the network. and they got their investors to make a NYA plan to PR a possible chance of onchain scaling but only under terms of activating cores roadmap first, to the back peddle that NYA plan too...

by the way you can flip flop and spin all the social drama you like. but there are actual lines of code and block data, and stats that show the real series of events. so no point playing the social drama PR game to defend cores actions.

as for is there any code thats not core adoration/following.. well there would be if it wasnt for the REKT/mandatory campaigns over the last 3-5 years

anyway,
im finding it funny the same few names pop up trying their dang hardest to defend a WHO(core devs) instead of a what (bitcoin innovation). even as going as far as defending those devs OTHER NETWORK stuff.

doomad

your defending core. not bitcoin
if you cared for bitcoin as a decentralised network. you would not care or need to worry or need to defend core. because core would not need defending

its not about restricting code they want. its about the code they want IS restricting others

do you see any code i wrote restricting core? no? ooooo so im not dictating code
do you see any bips i wrote that include mandatory activation dates? no? oooo so im not dictating anything mandatory
do you see any code i wrote that throws core off the network or makes core none functional? no? ooo because im not doing that

but look WHO is and look WHO you are defending
core have bips with mandatory activation. those bips have been used
core have code that restricts other nodes from doing things previously possible by non core nodes.
core have code that has thrown nodes off the network purely because they were not wanting the core roadmap

you are not defending a WHAT(network) you are defending a WHO(group of devs)
atleast recognise the difference and realise that you are not defending bitcoin but you are defending core.

in the last 9 years it has only been core devs and their buddies that have lead REKT campaigns. only core devs and their buddies that have supported mandatory activations and only core devs and their buddies that have added code to throw certain nodes off the network

as for user choice. show me a proper full validation, full archival, full node that is in no way affiliated with following the core roadmap, that offers their own community BIP gatway where users can offer suggestions of possible future features..
that does not involve moderated hop skip and jump(3 moderated venues to pass) to even get a chance to vetted into a client software

over many many many discussions i have used the term 'we need to go back to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of multiple implementations'.
why are you so afraid of that notion? does it go against your buddys roadplan?

read my footnote.
plus if you think im a dictator. i would be actually trying to DDos core. or rleased some client with some mandatory code.
yet im just saying my opinion. there have been many topics where you defend cores monarchy. i get that, you have a buddy system. cool for you
that doesnt mean others cant have opinions and call out the crap that occurs

there has only been one group that have actually acted with dictatorial methods. and you can guess who that is

if i see something wrong. ill call it out. but calling it out is not a dictatorship. its just calling it out.
im sorry if i upset your buddies, but calm down. its not like im the one that pushes out mandatory code changes that only had 35% community uptake before and after