You asked for words from developers and that's exactly what you got.  You then claimed the developer was wrong, but the only reason you could possibly thing Gregory Maxwell is wrong in what he said is if you lack the technical understanding to comprehend his words.  You clearly aren't in any position to comment if you cant understand why he's right.  BCH definitely changed their network magic to avoid tangling with the BTC chain, but that didn't happen right away.  Read the code.  

And if you're still banging on about UASF, that code was forked from Core's repository and may have shared some contributors with Core, but UASF is not an official Core build.  That's why it has its own repo.  As I've pointed out to you in no uncertain terms on multiple occasions.  I know that doesn't fit with your pathological need to blame Core for everything, so I'm sorry that reality can't be more accommodating for you.

Indeed.  BCH had to make a few important changes.  First and foremost was updating their network magic, so that they would not be following the BTC chain, then they needed the EDA to compensate for the lower-than-anticipated hashrate their chain had. 

Either way, it takes two to tango.  But I'd personally still argue that BCH announced their fork prior to agreeing to change their network magic, which is why Core responded by implementing the code they did.

To clarify, "Amazon" are not accepting payments via Lightning.  Someone has made a third-party plugin for people to use on Amazon's website that will enable Lightning payments to be made.  Amazon are not directly involved at this stage.  It's a small but crucial distinction.

That's genuinely saddening.  It seems the governments of this world aren't willing to let people prove that not everyone needs them.  It doesn't serve their interests to allow people to live independently from the state, otherwise more might follow, which is why they'll fight it at every opportunity.

I said tell us HOW, not "make a fantasy list of improbable things you'd ideally like to see in Bitcoin".  How would you get the rest of us to run code supporting any of that?  Even if you could convince someone to write code to enforce all four points (and I'm highly doubtful that you ever will), we could all just keep running the code we currently run to completely ignore all your bullshit changes and keep doing all the things we're currently doing to piss you off so much (and it's fun to watch, so I'm personally in no hurry to see it change).  The only way you can have your sad little wishlist is if other users want it.  You need to find people who share your beliefs.  This is what you are incapable of comprehending.  None of your tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy crackpot lunacy changes any of it.  If people on this network wanted the things on your basket-case wishlist, they would run code to enact it.  So you need to find a network where people want what you want.  Clearly that isn't this one.  Now go be a pathetic crybaby loser somewhere else, please.

We're doing Lightning.  Decision made.  You can't stop us.  No one cares if you think it's fair or not.

D'awww, does poor widdle fwanky think someone didn't play nice?  Diddums.

Tell us how you're going to make us meet your definition of "fair" going forwards.  Oh that's right, you can't.  

Bitcoin doesn't acknowledge or recognise whether you think it's fair or not.  Bitcoin is only what the users instruct it to be.  Those users continue to decide with every single block that this is what Bitcoin is.  You've been crying about it for a couple of years now and you can keep crying for a couple more, because you don't have the numbers behind you to make the slightest hint of difference.

Apparently, Notre Dame is technically owned by the French Government.  It seems almost perverse that Bitcoin users, of all people, want to raise money for a national government.   

Neither, because I fundamentally reject your entire premise.  The act of forking only becomes an act of theft if the purpose or intent of your fork is to deprive someone of their property.  Each fork should be judged on the effects of its code.  

If we take your stance to its logical extreme, if I were to create a fork that redirected every single transaction to an address where I controlled the private key, would you dare to claim I'm not trying to steal from people?  Or are you now saying I don't have the right to create that fork where I can steal from people?  Now what is your pick?  Suddenly you realise the dilemma.  

The only reasonable stance is that people can create forks like that, because:
 
a) no one can stop them from doing it
and
b) I personally wouldn't want to try to stop them if I could because it's not my place to do so

But what we can do is say it's morally wrong and then let people decide for themselves if they want to follow that fork or not.

Theft is normally considered a bad thing in general, yes.  I wasn't aware we were debating that.  You can create a fork to deprive people of their coins if you want, but I'm going to take the personal view that you're a bad person if you do it.  What part of that wasn't clear?

Yes.  And it's also a defence of all developers being equal.  Each client survives on its merits.  We currently have a level playing field, but because some people are of the mistaken opinion that one dev team have an advantage, they propose hamstringing that dev team and handing a natural advantage to others.  If effect, creating an imbalance of power.  I'm beginning to suspect that's their goal.  Fortunately, I don't think anyone here is foolish enough to buy into that idea being preferable to what we currently have, though.

Don't get me wrong, anyone has the right to create that fork, but I have to right to call it morally reprehensible.  The people on that chain would be immoral hypocrites in my eyes.  They would believe their property rights should be respected when they disrespect the rights of others.  If that's what they want to do, they're perfectly free to.  But I suspect their chain won't be very popular.

From a moral standpoint, I can't help but think some people are looking at this from the wrong angle.  I get why people want to defend satoshi because "they're the founder/creator", or "it's disrespectful" or "because of everything they've done for Bitcoin", etc, but the same should apply to absolutely anyone.  Theft is theft and that's what the OP is advocating.  Even if there was someone really terrible who tried to do bad things to Bitcoin, it would still be wrong to for anyone to say we should fork and destroy their coins.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty Ownership Rights, to purchase a little temporary Safety Market Stability, deserve neither Liberty Ownership Rights nor Safety Market Stability."

I can't help but wonder, when these celebrities are investing, is it actually them who are making the decision to invest in crypto-businesses?  Or do they just pay someone to pick the investments for them?  It's all well and good coming up with the soundbites that they're:
but did someone merely just pick something they assumed will be lucrative and then worry about making up the justifications for their choices as an afterthought?

So rather than even attempting to counter a single point I made, you just repeat all the same incorrect assertions and outright lies you've made dozens of times before in a slightly different way.  Your entire argument hinges on the absurd notion that nobody on the Bitcoin network likes what Core are doing, but still continue to run their code anyway.  You're insane.

You keep telling people that Bitcoin doesn't work in the way it clearly does and instead works in the way you imagine it does.  Then, at the same time, you somehow complain about the way in which Bitcoin does currently work (because it actually doesn't work like how you imagine) and why you think Bitcoin would be better if it did work the way you imagine.  It demonstrably doesn't work like you imagine and never will.  Now clean out the mess between your ears that you have the audacity to call a brain and get back to us when you have a clue.

One group dominates because the users run that code.  If users opted to run different code, obviously one group wouldn't dominate.  And the only response you have in your sad little arsenal is that all those users are sheep, but if they were sheep, they might believe the lies you're telling them.  So clearly they are capable of thinking for themselves.  Other dev groups need to step up their game and offer users something they might actually want.  You still think that users want larger blocks, but evidently you're wrong about that.  If people wanted that, they'd run code to make it happen.



Prove to me that they can't.  You seem to be attributing some sort of moral implication to my words, as if it's somehow wrong or bad for me to say that.  You can call it right or wrong, but I'm just telling you how it is.  Any dev group can code what they like.  And I'll keep saying it.  Because it's the truth.  If I point that out that abundantly plain and clear truth, you have to recognise that's not something anyone can use to besmirch my character.  If anything, the opposite is true.  It tarnishes your character to say that Core can't code what they want.  That's simply not true.  If you say devs can't code what they want, then you are a liar (or possibly just an idiot, I still can't tell).



Users ran the code, so the effects of the code are enforced whether you like it or not.  Again, this is a plain and simple fact that you cannot overcome.  It's your permission that isn't needed.  You don't matter.  Get over yourself.



We already have consensus.  Every time the network churns out another block, we continue to have consensus.  If we did not have consensus, there would be forks.  Each of those forks can then form their own new consensus.  We don't need your consensus because you think consensus means "permission".  You genuinely believe you can sit there running different code and somehow prevent us from running the code we want to run.  It doesn't work like that.



Because it isn't.  Democracies look like the never-ending Brexit shitshow.  You sound like Theresa May who wants MPs to vote on her crap proposal for the dozenth time and everyone has to play along with this total farce until they can reach agreement.  It's ridiculous.  In Bitcoin, we can simply ignore your crap proposals.  We don't have to give them a second thought.  We don't have to agree.  We can just leave you behind and move forward without the people who don't agree.  Again, prove to me I'm wrong about that.  You literally don't understand the first thing about Bitcoin because you just want some democracy/voting/permission bullshit.



Disconnected.  Not banned.  Disconnected.  Stop lying.



The fact that you would even dare to compare something as horrific as Apartheid to your butthurt over people running code you don't agree with just goes to show what an utterly reprehensible creature you are.  Please go to a country afflicted by Apartheid and compare the plight of those people with yours.  Go ahead and tell them how you perceive this supposed injustice of compatible nodes equal to the injustice they face in their daily lives.  You are disgusting.

---

But... but... but... democracy/voting/permission/etc?  

We all have to agree or no one can do it.  

You just need to research more.  

He's literally never going to get it.  At some point it's just going to reach the stage where someone changes his title to "wrong because franky1".

No one group is capable of "holding it back".  If you believed one group were able to control Bitcoin in such a way, surely you would just admit to yourself that Bitcoin had failed and move on to another coin.  Bitcoin was designed in a way that it wasn't susceptible to co-option, so if what you say is true, then it sounds like we should scrap the whole idea and go back to the drawing board, because it hasn't worked.

That is, of course, assuming anyone actually believed that devs were holding Bitcoin back.   

In ideal circumstances, LN is more secure than zero-conf.  But if we dare to think in terms of ideal circumstances, we'll incur franky1's wrath and he'll start accusing us of being of a "utopian mindset" again [//EDIT:  Did I call it, or did I call it?  Predictable as ever   ].  So we have to add the disclaimers about it being less secure if you can't stay online to monitor it, or the network is experiencing a heavy flow of traffic which could cause a timelock to expire, etc.

Humans, generally speaking, seem to be becoming more entitled as time goes on.  People are less inclined to accept things as they are and focus more on how things ought to be, but then it's also seldom people can agree with each other on how it ought to be.  At this stage, it makes absolutely no difference if changes are made to merit/trust/whatever else people are complaining about, because someone is always going to hate it and it's likely we're just going to have to put up with complaining forever.  We just have to find the path that pisses off the fewest people and then persevere with it.

It sounds like you should be complaining to whoever uploaded the youtube video you watched, since that's the root cause of your problems.  They lied and you believed them, which was the first of a series of poor decisions which led things to escalate from there.  

Maybe you should have investigated the claims made in that youtube video as thoroughly as you claim to have investigated this gambling website?  Maybe once you started losing, it might have been an idea to stop, rather than digging yourselves deeper and losing everything?  Maybe don't refer others, presumably telling them the same "No-lose strategy" lie you fell for and get them to make the same mistakes you did?  Consider taking at least some responsibility for your own part in all of that.  As for your accounts being blocked, people get thrown out of casinos all the time for making a scene and generally being a disruptive nuisance after they lost, so I don't see why this situation would be any different.  

Ultimately, if you had been trying to use regulated gambling websites, you would likely have been asked to provide ID verification to prove your age.  That's why you chose to take the unregulated route.  So you can't really complain about a lack of regulation when you know you wouldn't have been using the site at all if it was regulated.

I see a near-zero chance of any of you getting any of your funds back.  Just consider this experience as a useful life lesson to learn from while you're still young.

I stand corrected.  CLTVs are indeed the lock used on Bitcoin's blockchain.  However, this doesn't negate the point about there being no fractional reserve or IOUs.



There is still an appreciable difference between an "IOU" and a transaction that has been signed and approved by both parties.  It is far easier to renege on an IOU than it is to renege on a payment channel where both parties have revoked the previous commitment state.  You can certainly keep calling it an IOU if you want, but I suspect I'm not the only one who will never accept such a crass definition.