The only logic fail is yours.  You see flips flops because you don't understand English.  

You whine about disconnecting nodes.
You whine about "mandated" activations where someone picks a date for a fork to occur.  

You can't prevent either of those things.  If people run the code that does those things, they happen.  There is no flip flop, you are just a simpleton.

Note the part where I said it's something we have to be mature about, then cue franky1 being totally immature and fixating on his one favourite date where he can refer to an arbitrary 65% figure that doesn't actually mean anything in practice.  Then a bunch of fanciful wish-list stuff.



Call it "TRUE" consensus all you like, but you are powerless to make everyone accept your definition of what that is.  What you can't reconcile is that if you don't like date-based activations, then the method you'd naturally lean towards is bit signalling, but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.  You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations.

Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else says, consensus is going to happen naturally.  There's literally no point in trying to direct things in a direction you approve of by telling people what they can/can't/should/shouldn't code because it's not something you have any say over.  Just know that everyone is going to run what they think is best and that's how it's always going to be.  That's why your plea for "true" consensus falls on deaf ears.  We already have true consensus.  You just think it should be different, like "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree" etc.  It doesn't work like that.  People can ignore your vote if they want.  They can disconnect you if they want.  They can code stuff you don't like if they want. 

You can't force people to vote.  You can't force them to consider your idea.  You can't force anything.   



This only holds true if you believe users are "sheep".  Probably why you're the only one who thinks devs are "in control" when they clearly aren't. 

This is the tricky part.  What happens when someone feels the "best" software needs to include something that would result in a fork?  It's not something easily avoidable.  I think it's just something we have to be mature about.  We can't treat every fork proposal as a "coup" or "power grab", because that's not a healthy attitude.  But at the same time, if those proposing a fork feel strongly enough about their ideas, it's only fair for them to understand that they might need to move forward without support, as an altcoin, if the two sides can't reconcile their differences.  Longstanding deadlocks are not healthy for anyone in the community.

This.  Every centralised exchange user is "under risk".  Obviously when the owner is claiming to be dead, or withdrawals are disabled for whatever reason, it seems more apparent that they've lost their funds, but the risk is always there from the offset.  Why do the media insist on waiting for an exchange to fail to point out that users could lose their funds?  It's an endemic risk.

All the crypto-related sites are obviously reporting it, but the mainstream media only seem to care about the dumb folding phone.  Sounds about right.

I think we both know I got it right.  You're not fooling anyone.

//EDIT:  Also, did you send yourself a merit from your Shitecoin account to get out of newbie status?

Chances are, Dimon was trash-talking Bitcoin in 2017 precisely because he knew JPM were working on their bankstercoin crap.  What he failed to realise is that he should be trash-talking Ripple, since that bankstercoin crap is his actual competition.  Bitcoin is on an entirely different playing field, blissfully unaware of their existence.  

If precious metals are the analogy we're going with, clearly it's not practical to use Gold for every single last thing.  Other metals have specific uses where Gold may not be appropriate.  There's nothing wrong with that.  But if "the Silver had surpassed the Gold", you wouldn't be the lone kook saying it.  We have this little thing called 'Supply and Demand', which generally denotes what the market is doing.

Some would argue it's not all about cheap fees and spare capacity.  If that's what you want to focus on, by all means, have fun with your beliefs.  Network effects, security and adoption are also important factors to consider.  Just know that not everyone shares your priorities and the market generally seems to have a rather different idea about which cryptocurrency is leading the way.

I don't know why people set themselves up to fail like this.  We live in an age of unprecedented record keeping.  Someone is going to dig up this quote in 5 years and throw it back at him if he isn't right.



Not in the quantity that they'd like, no.  There's always going to be "filler" material about which vaguely recognisable person said what.

Lie.

Larger blocks are a bigger deterrent to running a full Bitcoin node than smaller blocks.  That's why users on this network have opted for SegWit, which only results in a small increase.  You've said on many occasions that you think we should get rid of the "wishy washy scaling factor" and just have everyone use a 4mb base weight, but you're the only one I've seen calling for that.  If users wanted what you want, they wouldn't be running the code that supports SegWit.  And before you start blithering on about "forcing users into other networks" (like you often do), the most private and secure way to use LN is to run a full node, so even users of "other networks" have an incentive to run a full Bitcoin node.



I don't care if the real Satoshi Nakamoto came out of hiding and said it, no one is any any position to determine that "slow internet users" don't have a right to run a full node.  Try to weasel out of it all you like, but it's clearly not wrong of me to point out that Craig "scammer" Wright, a discredited lunatic, likes to peddle the view that such users aren't "worthy" to be a part of the network and it's also not wrong for me to point out that you like to say a similar thing using slightly clever wordplay.  I don't care if you're using his rhetoric or he's using yours.  You're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.



*hears the sounds of moving goalposts and weasel words*

How many users are changing the setting up, franky1?  How many of these "super nodes" are bottlenecking the network in your opinion?  Surely you've done some research on this to support your claims?  

I'm not buying it.  You've expressed your disdain for those who run full nodes, particularly Core nodes, on more than one occasion.  You call them mindless sheep every chance you get:  


You can't deny the conflict of interest in the fact that there are thousands of nodes out there enforcing rules you despise and it would benefit your cause greatly if large numbers of them were to stop doing what they're doing.  Obviously you're going to support any hint of the notion that some of them might be a burden to the network.  It's understandable that it would be beneficial, from your perspective, if businesses were left to decide on consensus matters, because many of them were supportive of larger blocks.  Funny coincidence, that.    

I know you're not that stupid to say it such a direct fashion, because people would naturally take affront to that.  But are we supposed to take it as a coincidence that you constantly present the math to show the "bottleneck" home users create?  I see the utter contempt you show for such users.  Because they're the ones standing in the way of what you want.  It's clear you'd love to see them gone and just have businesses running full nodes so you could justify more throughput with less latency.  You would happily throw decentralisation under the bus at your earliest convenience.  No one is falling for it. 

The ideas you support have been implemented in other chains and those chains are failing to attract a sizeable userbase.  So, rather than accept the fact that no one likes your ideas, you campaign tirelessly to inflict your poison on this chain.  Even though we clearly don't want it. 

Here are just some of the topics where you blame home users for ruining your (horrific) vision of what Bitcoin "should" be:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5070680.msg48195853#msg48195853
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086745.msg48750341#msg48750341
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5107437.msg49649494#msg49649494
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5086745.msg48748926#msg48748926

And my personal favourite:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108368.msg49730373#msg49730373

Also, to put this entire topic into context, I'm pretty sure Khaos77 is Zin-Zang.  I can only assume they're a plant in this thread to make franky1 appear reasonable by comparison, but they're both worthless trolls.

Cut the crap.

You are blatantly trying to twist Pieter Wuille's words to imply that a developer endorses your ridiculous notion that only businesses need to run nodes.  Here's that text again:  


Just in case there was any confusion on your part (and I'm pretty sure there isn't), this text is clearly stating that nodes already on the network should not connect to a greater number of nodes than necessary.  One single node gains no additional benefit from connecting to 50 other nodes when connecting to 8 would suffice (and, in fact, connecting to 50 actually harms the network).  This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your baseless assertion that regular users don't "need" to run a node, or don't benefit from running a node (as if you were in any position to make that judgement for them), or that the network somehow doesn't benefit from additional nodes.  

You are free to express your mindset, just don't be a manipulative sack of excrement when you do.  If you misunderstood then please make that clear.  I can forgive an honest mistake.  But since you keep telling everyone you know what you're talking about and it's them who need to research, I naturally have to assume this is you being malicious.

I've seen you post some manipulative bullshit before, but this is a new low.  There is a clear and obvious distinction between "don't change the default settings for your node in a way that would waste connections" and "nodes aren't needed".  

The only rational conclusions are that you are either:

a) being manipulative, or
b) you're simply too stupid to understand what Pieter Wuille is talking about  

Some people seem incapable of understanding the difference between altering the code to allow more throughput and non-mining full nodes being willing to accept more throughput.  It's not an issue of developers "stifling", "stagnating" or "stalling" development.  That's just a weak non-argument thrown around by people who don't understand or respect consensus.  When users are willing to bear the cost of more throughput, we'll get more throughput.  It's something users have to decide for themselves.  There's nothing "innovative" about trying to force additional costs onto people who don't want to pay them.

If nodes just blindly relay, then why wouldn't they relay an invalid block?  You said it yourself, they relay blocks which conform to consensus.  Which means non-mining nodes are enforcing consensus rules.

You are free to believe the misguided notion that non-mining nodes don't matter, but you won't find much support for that kind of foolishness here.

I haven't dealt with the trust system very much, but I'd personally leave such a rating as neutral feedback.  It allows other users to be aware that they don't have a track record and doesn't negatively impact users looking to get into escrow services.

Obviously, if they defraud anyone, then negative feedback is going to be justified.  But I don't believe trust should be a presumption of 'guilty until proven innocent'.

The mindlessness above is that some newbie spammer copy/pasted and plagiarised your own words, then added some smileys at the end and you didn't even notice.  Did you really think someone actually agreed with you?  That's just precious.   

I'm just hoping this isn't yet another one of those times where some celebrity says something positive about Bitcoin and everyone makes a big deal out of it, because they think it'll help with price/adoption/whatever.  Then the celebrity says/does something stupid and everyone suddenly pretends it was never a big deal and moves onto the next celebrity who said something positive. 

True.  A significant number of people currently involved in Bitcoin are speculators who are attempting to grow their national currency holdings.  That indeed doesn't help in reducing the quantity of IOUs the banksters get to play with. 

But if there ever comes a time in future where things change and lots of people receive their income in BTC and then spend their BTC back into the economy for goods and services, then it would help reduce global debt.  But if this is going to happen, it probably won't be for some time yet.