Whereas you argue that no one can write what they want and we have to have a vote where everyone agrees and whatever other total drivel you've come out with over the last two years.  Bitcoin has never worked like that and never will work like that.  If you ever recognise the situation for what it is, let me know.  Until then, I'll continue to think of you as a lost cause.

Funnily enough, I can write what I want and activate a feature as and when I want to, but crucially, if I do that without other users joining me, it's going to be a very small and insignificant network.  What you fail to comprehend is that all the changes you claim are bad have adequate support.  The protocol has no interest in your belief that the support wasn't legitimate.  The only thing the protocol knows are the rules currently being enforced.  The protocol has no concept of its "purpose", so if you have some personal preference on what that purpose should be, run the client you want to run and see who agrees with you.  Just know that if users don't agree with you, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them removing you if you flag support for incompatible rules.  It's not a democracy and you don't have any right to demand that other users consider your proposals.  Run what you want, take your chances.  



If you ever get tired of pursuing your current career as a full-time internet troll, you could always consider comedy.  If I don't understand how Bitcoin works, how is it I'm always to one who has to tell you how and why your "improvements" aren't viable or realistic?  Some examples:

Franky1:  Why can't we make LN devs work on Bitcoin instead?
Me:  Because that's not possible.

Franky1:  Why can't we make it so that Core are purely a reference client and can't introduce changes until the community have voted on them?
Me:  Because you can't enforce it.

Franky1:  Why can't we disallow code that includes activation dates?
Me:  Because you can't disallow anything.

So because I'm the one who keeps pointing out the massive flaws in your abysmal ideas, you question my understanding of Bitcoin because you can't get what you want?  Get a clue, please.

The only thing you understand about Bitcoin is that you hate just about everything about it.  Keep shooting the messenger if you like, I'm only telling you how it is.  Sorry if I keep pointing out how reality differs to how you might want it to be.  Doesn't make me wrong, though.  That's your specialty.

Wrong because franky1.

What you are suggesting is unenforceable, though.  If I were a developer, tell me how anyone can prevent me from writing whatever code I wanted.  More to the point, why should anyone should have the right to prevent me from coding what I wanted?  Bitcoin is permissionless.  That's a quality no one can break.  Every other aspect of the design is exactly as the users will it to be by enforcing the rules in the code they freely choose to run.  You are not in a position to tell anyone they should only code things in a way that you want.

Even if you can't comprehend what I'm saying, I'm sure others can.  Alternative clients have a right to exist, but the right for alternative clients to exist does not negate the rights of other Bitcoin users to remove them from their network at any time and for any reason.  It should be clear that it's not any sort of injustice when some alternative clients have been disconnected from the Bitcoin network.  There is absolutely no requirement to wait for an alternative client's feature to activate before deciding to disconnect it if that feature is not compatible.  Particularly if the change it proposes has the potential to put the security of the network at risk.  It is unreasonable to expect users of client X to wait for client Y's feature to activate when users of client Y don't need to wait for X and can remove X users from their network at any time by activating their feature in client Y.

Consensus does not mean everyone has to agree.  If everyone had to agree, there would be no need for a consensus mechanism at all.  Consensus means those that do agree move forwards together.  It means some people can and will be left behind if they don't agree with a larger number of users.  There is no way to fake or bypass consensus.  If the network you are on is churning out blocks at regular intervals, that's all the consensus you need.  But unless you are on the chain with the most accumulated proof of work and the most economic activity, you have not earned the right to claim that your network is the real Bitcoin.  A small number of users do not have the ability to block a larger number of users from implementing changes.  This has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, even if some people try to dispute it, or worse still, try to twist and distort the meaning of consensus to sound like something more or less akin to Democracy.

It is not possible to implement anything resembling Democracy in Bitcoin and many would argue it would not be desirable to do so even if that were possible.  There is no way to prevent people writing or running code that would completely disregard whatever democratic processes such a system might have.  If a person or group attempts to pick an arbitrary date and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that date by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network.  If a person or group attempts to set an arbitrary activation threshold and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that activation threshold by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network.  But in doing so, they run the risk of finding themselves on another network if they ignore a change that a large number of users want.  You have the option to rejoin the network you left by choosing to conform to consensus rules once again.  No one person or group is in control.  It's not developers who make consensus decisions because the only thing that matters is what software people run.

Wrong on both counts.  

Firstly, I know you aren't having any effect on the network because Bitcoin categorically does not work the way you wish it did.  I'm merely pointing out that it will never work how you think it should, because that would be worse than what we have at the moment in every conceivable way.

Secondly, you are the one playing the logical fallacy with your ongoing appeal to pity, which is an emotional appeal.  You keep saying how unfair it is that clients are thrown off before their features activate and before we get their consent to follow a roadmap they might disagree with.  How unfair you believe it to be is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  

But please, keep telling us how Bitcoin would be better if we accepted your double-standard where other clients can remove us from their network at any given moment of their choosing, but we can't give them a helping push on their way and instead have to permit these clients to stay on this network so they can stifle progress and block activation of any features on this chain that you personally don't happen to like.  It's obvious why you would want Bitcoin to work in such a way, where other clients hold all the cards and can effectively hold the network to ransom.  How do you justify the belief that we supposedly have to wait for them to activate a feature, when they don't have to wait for us to activate a feature?

I didn't.  But I can't say it changes my stance on the matter.  While it's within the rules, they're free to do it. 

---

I'm taking this unrelated conversation to the cesspit it belongs in.  Now, if you could get back to Veriblock and why this will have little-to-no impact on Lightning, which is the topic we're trying to discuss here, that would be great.  If you want me to reply to more of your incorrect assertions about consensus, post them in that other topic and I'll happily oblige.  This topic is about Veriblock.

Rather than allowing franky1 to continue derailing the Veriblock thread, I'm cross-posting it to this cesspit of a topic:


I don't need your consent.  You are delusional if you think I do.  I am under no obligation whatsoever to tolerate incompatible rules on my network.  If you run incompatible rules, I can remove you from my network if I want to.  That is my prerogative.  You are powerless to stop me.  You don't matter unless I willingly acknowledge your existence.  And if I don't like your incompatible rules, I won't acknowledge your existence.  It's as simple as that.  I'm perfectly free to ignore you and whatever the effects of your code might be, activated or not. 

Your ongoing appeal to pity that other people would have to wait for your permission to do something, or that we have to let you stay on our network while you decide whether to break our rules or not is laughable.  None of your childish notions of everyone playing nice together mean anything here.  This is survival of the fittest.  Our ideas evolve and grow stronger, while your ideas are heading towards extinction.

You seem to live in some sort of dream world where your opinions are important and that people should somehow be required to consider your delicate feelings.  Maybe when you were in school they told you you were a unique and precious individual and that you matter or some such crap.  I'm sorry, but we don't hand out participation awards here.  We don't have to care about your feelings.  If you come in last place, no one is going to be there to tell you what a good effort you made.  Grow up.

And finally... you are not the majority.  You are the incredibly small and insignificant minority.  All the more reason why your opinions don't matter. 

He's angry at Core because a few devs made fun of him:


He's been holding a pathetic grudge ever since. 

That's a fair assessment.  Basically, what Veriblock are doing is within the letter of the law, but not within the spirit of the rules.  To the letter of the law, an "All-you-can-eat-buffet" means you can eat as much as you like, but in the spirit of the rules, if you eat so much that there isn't enough left for anyone else, other people generally aren't going to be very happy with you.  The behaviour of Veriblock is vaguely similar to that of a parasitic organism feeding off its host.  Not nearly enough to kill the host, but enough to have some noticeable adverse effects.  

It's one of those greyest of grey areas.  Where do we draw the line between freedom and fair use?  How much usage is too much?  And so on.  So for now, it's going to continue and we'll just have to accept it as a consequence of Bitcoin effectively being a victim of its own success.  Bitcoin is now so much more secure than other networks, that people are leveraging that security to prop up other blockchains.  It's actually quite an impressive achievement when you think about it.  Even if it does have some unwanted repercussions.

---

As for the off-topic nonsense:


If you think that, then you don't understand the rules as well as you think you do.  BCH announced their activation date and had not changed their network magic at that time (They did later, though, which I respect.  For all the bad things people say about BCH, at least they forked responsibly in the end).  The /btc1 client developers, however, outright refused to change their network magic, which was highly irresponsible.  Because of these factors, action was taken to keep the Bitcoin network secure.  It's all well documented and I have posted the relevant link several times in the past to demonstrate that both to you and to anyone else who might be tempted to believe your incessant lies.  

It was the right call.  It's not even something that needs defending if you actually understood the first thing about Bitcoin, but since you clearly don't, I'll keep explaining it to you until it sinks in.  I'm guessing it'll probably take another two or three years at this rate.  

Again, if you think any of that compares to Veriblock remaining with the rules and simply being a bit greedy with the amount of resources they consume, you're clearly not in a position to comment on such technical matters and you are only discrediting yourself further.  Sending lots of transactions is a whole different ballgame to announcing a fork without changing your network magic.  If you conflate the two, I will call your intelligence/integrity (depending on whether you even realise you're talking nonsense or not, I still can't figure which it is) into question.



If you think you can force people to wait for an arbitrary date or time to reject incompatible code, you do not understand consensus.  No exceptions.  You just don't get it.  It's not a democracy.  There's no voting.  We don't have to wait for anyone to decide to activate a feature before rejecting it.  That's how freedom works.  Nothing you can do to change it.  You clearly can't reconcile your differences with this network, so please find another network of users to troll and leave us in peace.

Ah, how joyously predictable.  The inept troll thinks sending valid transactions conforming to the network rules is an identical situation to running a client proposing incompatible network rules which had the potential to result in the loss of users funds and was a clear security risk to the network.  It's almost like I saw it coming and posted it just to point out what an utter moron he is when he inevitably posted to claim it's somehow a flip-flop when it isn't.  

If I'm digging a hole, it's for a dipshit like you to walk right into.  Well done.  Way to fall straight in the trap.

No one in their right mind is going to argue anything about cheques in this context, because it's a false analogy.  There is no valid comparison between Lightning and traditional banking, as I've made it abundantly clear to you in the past.  They are entirely different things.

I dare you to argue that sending a standard Bitcoin transaction which doesn't confirm because you didn't include a suitable fee means you paid someone in full. 
I dare you to argue that sending a standard Bitcoin transaction which doesn't confirm because you attempted a double spend means you paid someone in full.

What's your point?  Do you ever have one? 

"Spam" has always been a highly subjective matter around these parts.  For some people, if the sender pays an appropriate fee, it's not actually considered spam.  It's just a transaction.  It doesn't break any rules.  If we start trying to label certain types of transactions as illegitimate, it sets a dangerous precedent.  I can't speak for any developers, so you'd have to check with them to be sure, but something tells me they don't see themselves as some kind of sporting referee who needs to enforce rules based on judgement calls and "send off" offending parties.  If it's legal within the protocol, then that's sufficient.

While the spike was pretty big, it still feels like it must have been a slow news day, heh.  Interest is naturally going to be cyclic, so I can't help but question if it really warrants an article each time it happens.  In the grand scheme of things, people typing something into a particular search engine doesn't really seem newsworthy.

I've been to see local bands at small venues, where the entry price was £2.  I've been to see well-known bands at national venues, where the price has been £70 or more once you add the booking fees and whatever other crap they include in the price.  And I can promise you more people were at the £70+ gigs.  People are absolutely willing to pay higher prices if they want a big name, even if some of the local bands that only a few people have ever heard of might have some serious talent.  It happens all the time in the real world, so I suggest you come back to it.

Meaningless marketing buzzword bullshit.   

Every time someone talks about their coin somehow being "next generation", it's just a desperate plea for attention.  It's invariably a case of "Look at me, I have the shiniest baubles!" and generally not much else.  If it didn't shatter the illusion and they thought they could get away with it, they would probably try and call their coin Gen1000.   

Obsessing over increased throughput at the base protocol level to the exclusion of all else is foolish.  Throughput is not the sole feature users are looking for in a coin, despite how much you like to pretend it's literally the only thing that matters.  Cheaper doesn't always mean better.  Sometimes in the real world you get exactly what you pay for, so if you buy cheap, you get cheap quality in return.  In the real world, products compete for market share.  Cryptocurrencies are no different.  It's an open market.  Bitcoin is clearly not the only coin.  But it is currently the one with the highest security, the strongest network effects and the widest brand recognition.  It's only natural you would expect to pay a bit more for such desirable qualities, because supply and demand is an important factor in free and open markets.  However, it's not realistic to expect Bitcoin to be the one-size-fits-all product for every single crypto transaction in the known universe.  If you and franky1 are advocating that Bitcoin should be the "one true coin" that does everything for everyone otherwise it's somehow broken, then perhaps it is you who are the fanatics.  

 

No one cares if you can't see the sense in it.  Other people can see the sense in it and that's why it's happening.  If more people saw things the way you do, it might be different.  But they don't see things the way you do.  You are free to start your own network if you don't like what's happening on this one.  That would make far more sense than you incessantly whining to all the people supporting this network that you aren't getting a free ride. 



Which is why I'm free to discuss why your ideas are abysmal.  If you don't like me talking about why your ideas are abysmal, cry harder, because it's not going to change.  Other chains are doing on-chain scaling.  This chain is doing small amounts of on-chain scaling as and when the users deem it appropriate.  On-chain scaling may increase in future, but if/when it does happen, I can assure you that your ceaseless bawling won't be the catalyst.

I'd rather hear that directly from them, rather than a renowned disinformation agent like you.



Except for the part where you're the one who keeps saying it's "bad" and "expensive" because you are bitter and resentful about the fact that Bitcoin is not a democracy where we have to care about what you think.  We are categorically not doing what you'd like us to be doing and I genuinely don't care how incapable you are of accepting that, because it makes no difference to Bitcoin. 

Anyone who is capable of taking a neutral and balanced stance (clearly not you), would say that there are compromises involved and that we need to explore all the options, rather than just increasing throughput in the base protocol each and every time transaction fees begin to rise.  That's not deemed a sustainable approach for a blockchain that has to deal with as much traffic as Bitcoin.  In the last 24 hours, Bitcoin handled nearly 400,000 transactions, averaging over 16000 transactions per hour.  Most altcoins don't even come close to one-tenth of that.  What those coins might be able to handle if they ever came close to their capacity is completely irrelevant.  What their fees are right now is completely irrelevant.  They are not valid comparisons if they do not handle the same amount of traffic.



And I really find it stupid how some people think that having no fee pressure is positive.  Each to their own, I guess.  Maybe come back when you have some actual support for your terrible ideas.  Until then, your impotent whining is achieving nothing. 

Maybe next you could tell us again how it's the developers who are supposedly "stalling development" when in reality it's you who wish you could stall development by vetoing any changes you don't like with just 6% of the network disagreeing.  Sorry, but you are not in a position to block the advancements that have already been made, and it's unlikely you'll be in any position to block any future advancements.  But I'm sure you'll stick around to bitch about it all the while, anyway. 

I wouldn't mind being able to get that far, heh.  I've not had much luck even connecting to servers in the new 3.3.4 release.  I tried at least 10 different ones.  The circle in the corner stays red.  How long should it take before it starts synchronising?  

If I get that bit sorted, then I can try a bech32-to-bech32 transaction to see if I can reproduce the issue.

That's a very long-winded way of you admitting you were totally 100% wrong about it being like fractional reserve, but okay, I'm glad you got it figured out eventually.  Try to understand it before you go spouting off nonsense next time.  There is no fractional reserve involved.

It feels slightly disingenuous to say that prise rises are fuelling enthusiasm when part of that $5 million figure will be coming from the price rise itself.  If the price dropped down again tomorrow, it wouldn't mean that fewer people were using it.  It's probably best to stick to using BTC to measure the overall capacity.  That will avoid any moving goalposts.