Show me where I said "after".  That word doesn't even appear in my post.  Users can disconnect other nodes at any time.  If you are disconnected before your proposed rule change activates, I'll repeat again that any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  There is nothing incorrect about my statement.  My words do not solely relate to "AFTER activation".  If you can't understand that, it's your error, not mine.  Every time you say "flip flop" I say you fail at comprehending plain English.  That, or you're attempting to deliberately twist or distort what I'm saying.  It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

You don't have a point.  You just have overly emotive appeals to childish notions of "why can't everyone just play nice together?" and other such "fluffy clouds and rainbows" nonsense.  Sorry, but the real world doesn't play nice.  It's time for you to grow up and accept that life isn't fair and that not everyone thinks you deserve a medal just for taking part.  

Run the code you want to run.  If doing that puts you on another network, that's a "you" problem.  None of us owe you a solution to the part where you want something we clearly don't want.  Your freedom only extends to the point where you encroach on the freedom of others.  If you do that, you are free to leave.  



Oh wow, you're actually starting to get it.  YES FRANKY1, THAT'S HOW CONSENSUS WORKS.  USERS WHO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER BUILD A CHAIN TOGETHER ON THE SAME NETWORK.  INCOMPATIBLE CODE CAN BE FORKED OFF AT ANY TIME TO FORM A DIFFERENT NETWORK.  Took you long enough, but I'm glad we got there in the end.  Well done.  

It's not an altcoin until a fork occurs, but either side can reject the other at any time.  If you're going to run code that proposes an incompatible change, it should go without saying that you run the risk of other users being so vehemently opposed to your change that they may want to remove you from their network.  Consider it an occupational hazard.  Either those proposing the change can initiate a fork, or those who opposing the change can initiate the fork.  But no doubt you'll somehow fail to comprehend this and label it a flip flop as well, or tell me another made up reason why I need to research something, or just make some other weak deflection about social drama or whatever other catchphrases come to mind.  

To give an example to help you avoid your inevitable confusion, the client you are running proposes a change to the current consensus rules.  It runs on the BTC chain and currently enforces BTC consensus rules.  But it also contains incompatible code that has not been activated.  As such, it's an alternative client, not an altcoin.  One option is that users of your client could change the rules they enforce, enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other.  Another option (the one you don't like) is that users who are not running your client could change the rules they enforce, also enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other.  Alternatively, users of neither client change the rules they enforce and things remain as they currently do.  All three of these options are valid.  You do not have the right to rule any of them out.  

It's not viable to have a network where two diametrically opposed sides want to move in completely different directions.  What does it achieve to keep the two opposed sides on the same network, with neither side achieving anything?  We'd still be in a bitterly entrenched civil war, stuck in total deadlock if things hadn't unfolded how they did.  That's why it's far better for those who want raw throughput to do their thing on another chain while users on this chain focus on the things they want to implement.  Both sides get to move forward.  We then get to see which path works best.  Sometimes decentralisation can take the form of different chains trying different things.  If those other chains demonstrate success, we might adopt similar ideas on this chain later, who knows?  



I honestly don't know how you can sit there and claim those are the only options when you are running a client that wasn't made by Core and hasn't been "thrown off".  You have a choice.  You've already made it.  How do you then pretend the choice you've made somehow isn't an option?  It's lunacy.  Other clients exist.  You clearly know that if you are running one.  Try being less dishonest.

Your problem, as I've explained to you time and time again, is that you need OTHER USERS to agree with the choice you've made.  If users agreed with you, they'd be running the same client as you.  Apparently, they don't agree with you.  Keep arguing whatever it is you're going to argue and I'll continue decimating it, but your client has hardly any users.  Nothing you can say will change this fact.  The stuff you want is categorically not what other users want.

Features only activate if users run them.  If code was malicious, users wouldn't run it, so it wouldn't activate.  How can you possibly fail to grasp this?  Stop pretending that the code users have run to disconnect incompatible clients is malicious just because you personally disagree with it.  



As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network.  Please keep calling them sheep.  Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do.  Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.  

It all sounds a bit dramatic, doesn't it?  "Thrown off the network".  Scary stuff.  Except any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again.  You can follow multiple chains each with their own consensus rules if you desire.  But you don't get to tell me who I can or can't disconnect from my node.  I can disconnect anyone, at any time, for any reason I wish.  If your fear can't handle my right to do that, go play with fiat.



And how will you enforce that?  Oh right.  You can't.  You can express your will in the code you run, but, to the best of my knowledge, no one has invented code that stops me disconnecting someone from my node.



Which client are you running again?  Devs gave you that client, didn't they?  You have your variety.  Why is that not enough for you?  Why do you believe devs are only here so that they can code every ludicrous idea you've ever had?  I doubt that's what they signed up for.  You are so far beyond entitled that it's laughable.



You can't enforce that.  All you have is "should", "should" and more "should".  Also, consensus is happening every second of every minute of every hour of every day.  It's not a "vote" you can "complete".  Consensus is happening right now.  It is embodied by the rules that are enforced on the BTC network right now by those securing the chain.  The rules that are enforced can involve clients being disconnected.  The rules that are enforced mean that miners get to choose fee policy.  The rules that are enforced do not include any of your whiny "should" talk.



We heard you the first dozen times.  We know how you think consensus "should" work.  But the fact that it demonstrably doesn't work like that means you are the one you needs to learn it.  Consensus does mean you can be forked off.  Consensus does mean some users can implement ideas via softfork that you don't approve of.  Consensus does mean devs can code what they like and the code is 100% meaningless if those securing the chain don't agree with it.

None of your idealism and wishful thinking counters the crushing reality of how consensus actually works in the wild.  

I fully encourage people to decide for themselves.  If you notice, I provided the link to the discussion about disconnecting incompatible nodes.  People should read it.  Here it is again.  

Also, not that I ever expect an honest answer from you, but which is it?  Devs shouldn't make all the decisions or devs should decide fee policy and force miners to adhere to what the developers think it should be?  Your contradictions are not helping the discussion.  

Indeed.  New ideas and innovations can come from anywhere, precisely because it's decentralised.  All the people who can't even tolerate the existence of LN would find their time far better spent coming up with something new that other users might find agreeable.  Although it seems like many of the most persistent whiners probably lack the technical skills to do so.  So they have to put all their efforts into making up new FUD instead.  

But if anyone actually goes ahead and implements ideas in code which are not compatible with what other users are enforcing in their own implementations, they shouldn't be shocked to find themselves moving forward without the other Bitcoin users on board.  Bitcoin users are free to do their own thing and leave you to do whatever crazy stuff you might want to do.  Consensus doesn't mean you get to singlehandedly hold up the progress other people are making just because you don't agree with the direction they are clearly moving in and you somehow think your incompatible ideas are better.  Hence forks.

---

I'll be sure to hold a small celebration on 1st Aug 2019 to commemorate the anniversary of your ongoing butthurt.  It's about as close to caring as I'm ever likely to get.



Miners decide miner policy.  Why should Core force their ideas about fees onto miners?  It makes more sense to let the miners decide for themselves.  You'd know this if you researched it, like how you keep telling everyone else to do.  Try taking your own advice.  

Also, one could take this opportunity to point out the hypocrisy in arguing that it's bad for devs to make all the decisions and then simultaneously arguing that devs should decide fee policy for the miners.  Seriously, which is it?  If you're going to whine about how unfair it supposedly is, could you at least figure out what it is you actually want first?

Once investors understand that you take the crypto and store it in a wallet where only you control the private keys, they'll have reason to be more confident.  Further to that, they should also start considering the advantages of being users rather than merely investors.  There are numerous benefits provided by Bitcoin which have nothing to do with selling it for more of your national currency.  Those who just speculate are kinda missing the point.

Pretty sure I just said I'm not denying that incompatible nodes were disconnected.  Here's the rationale for it.  It was an open, publicly available discussion.  It's not some sort of sordid coverup.  You call it a "ploy" because you're a conspiracy theorist wingnut.  I call it a pragmatic and sensible solution which kept the network secure.  I agreed with it then and I agree with it now.  More crucially, without the aid of a time machine, you can't change what has already transpired, so your options are either to remain butthurt for the rest of your sad life, or get the hell over it and move on.



There was agreement.  Those securing the chain agreed.  No one cares if you don't agree.  Your numbers are insignificant.  Find more people who agree with you and then you will understand consensus.



No one can "learn" what you think you know unless they start from the same fundamentally flawed premise you did.  Anyone who actually understands Bitcoin will recognise that it doesn't work how you like to pretend it does and that's why no one ever comes to your defence when I'm verbally kerb-stomping you like this.  Start perceiving reality in the way everyone else already can and then you'll be able to figure out why your posts are so woefully ineffective at convincing people your fairy tales are true.

The client you're running didn't write itself either.  Stop pretending there is only one dev team.  Granted, there aren't many popular dev teams, but since you clearly want to falsely portray the situation as some sort of dictatorship, then I can see why you wouldn't freely admit that other clients are right there for the choosing and it's just that most people don't approve of their ideas.  Because if you admitted that, then your "argument" would be decimated.  

Maybe the other dev teams just need to raise their game a little?  Then more users might actually run their code.  That's up to them, though.  No one is going to agree with hamstringing one dev team to allow others to play catch-up, which, as I recall, was an idea you're rather fond of.  We have a level playing field.  Proposing to make it unlevel in order to assist weaker participants is not how we do things here.  It's survival of the fittest.  Weak ideas shouldn't survive, so they don't.  Try having better ideas and more convincing arguments in future if you want people to create and run code supporting those ideas.  



I'm not denying one dev team (again, there are multiple teams) wrote code that disconnected incompatible clients from the network.  Clearly they did.  There were media articles about it.  The part I deny is that it's somehow morally wrong for them to do that.  I will defend their actions.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did.  I even stated at the time I had no complaints about it.  Everything I said then, I will stand by now:


If you run code that goes against the will of other users, they can run code to disconnect you from their network.  People can run whatever code they like.  You're still in denial about the fact that users made their choice and the only thing you can do about it is run the client you want to run (and whine incessantly for the rest of forever, apparently).  As I said at the time, "just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on".



I want permissionless freedom and I already have it.  More diversity would be nice, but not at the expense of permissionless freedom.  You want to change the glorious paradise we currently enjoy into some sort of "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree before anyone can code anything" nonsense and you can literally climb up your own backside because Bitcoin will never work like that.  Ever.  People code what they want.  Users run what they want.  That is decentralisation.  No one is in a position of authority to stop someone from doing what they want.  Just know that if other people don't like what you're doing, you might end up doing it by yourself, because no one is forced to follow along.  You can go your own way by yourself if you want.  If others agree, they can follow you.  Everyone has a choice.  That's the best part about Bitcoin.  That's what I'm preserving.  Unity is not always the best solution.  Trying to stick together whilst simultaneously trying to move in opposite directions is not possible.  It's like arguing that human beings somehow function better when they suffer from multiple personality disorder.  

Your ideas, no matter how good you might think they are, would absolutely weaken both decentralisation and permissionless freedom.  If you ever managed to implement your ridiculous ideas in Bitcoin, developers would simply leave this network and continue developing on another network where they'd be straight back to being perfectly free to code what they want.  And that's the network which would thrive.  You keep talking about "stagnating development", but that's exactly what would happen if we had to have some stupid vote about every future change.  I mean, just look at Brexit.  How much simpler would it be if those who want it and those who don't want it simply ended up on different networks and each went their own separate way?  But instead, it's a total impasse.  No one can agree on anything.  Nothing is moving forward.  Everyone is sick of it.  That's what Bitcoin would look like if we did things your way.

And... saving the best for last:



Yes, some devs made a decision.  And then some users and some miners agreed with it.  So it happened.
  
It wouldn't have happened if some devs made a decision and then no one agreed with it.

You have no argument to counter this.  You will never have an argument to counter this.  

People have to agree for a change in Bitcoin to occur (and if people can't agree, a fork tends to sort it out).  If people agree, change happens.  You can't refute that.  No one can.  Large numbers of people have to run the code in order for that code to have any effect.  That's how it works.  If you don't like how it works, too bad.  The numbers aren't on your side.  If we ever find ourselves in a situation where the numbers are on your side (and pigs fly), then you can implement whatever dumb crap you like.  Until then, keep screaming "social drama", "research", "bypass", "mandate", "meander", etc in a bunch of threads where it isn't even on-topic.  It's pretty much all you're good for.  Derailing threads with mind-numbingly idiotic catchphrases and then trying to blame others when they point out the myriad reasons why you're demonstrably wrong.  Maybe consider a change in tactics?  It's clearly not having the desired effect.

Sounds like a bit of a leap.  And don't even start with your "meander" catchphrase, since you brought this discussion into the thread.  I can discuss points which you raise.  The above belief is all based on one massive assumption that users actually agreed with it and ran code which supported SegWit2x.  Even if Core had released such code, doesn't automatically mean users would have chosen to run it.  Like it or not, users are actually an important factor and can't be dismissed under the absurd belief that devs make all the decisions.  Also, I thought you said it's "not about blocksizes", so why are we back to talking about SegWit2x for the umpteenth time? 



No one's disputing that you have issues, but businesses are free to do whatever they like.  Some of them chose to support SegWit2x, some of them didn't.  Some businesses are developing for Lightning, some of them aren't.  Some businesses are doing things you or I might or might not support and be funded you people that you or I might or might not approve of, but they're free to do it anyway because permissionless.  Businesses are not the sole factor to consider, though.  The crux of the matter is that you don't like the code that other people and companies are running and that's just something you'll have to find a way to come to terms with.  If things really were as terrible as you keep making them out to be, why are businesses, users, speculators, etc all perfectly content to keep running this code?  It must be a conspiracy, right?  Couldn't possibly be that they're happy with the path we're on.



If Lightning does somehow have a detrimental effect on Bitcoin, users could (believe it or not, since it's just such a difficult scenario to even begin to comprehend    ) simply not use it.  Because if it doesn't benefit users, why would they use it?  At the end of the day, people are going to do whatever they damn well please.  That's the best part about decentralisation.  And that's fine by me.  So by all means keep telling your spooky campfire tales about the Blockstream boogeymen.  Some of us aren't as scared by them as you seem to be.  If Blockstream have plowed money into something that fails, it's not very good business sense on their part.  So perhaps it would make sense for them to make something that is good for users.  Had that thought ever occurred to you?



I can see how someone might come to that rather strange conclusion if they began their reasoning from the standpoint that devs made all the decisions.  But, since that's not even remotely the case, anyone who bases their views in reality will understand that those securing the chain made the choices and ran the code that led us to where we are now.  Try starting from a premise that isn't fundamentally flawed.

It's possible that our rate of technological advancement will remain ahead of the legislative curve.  I suspect users will naturally take the path of least resistance.  If KYC becomes burdensome for enough users, someone will likely find a way around it with some newfangled technical wizardry.  In the same way that it's difficult for authorities to prevent file-sharing of copyright material because the methods of transmission constantly evolve, the same will likely apply with crypto.

Personally, I see centralised exchanges as an interim throwback to traditional finance, rather than the way in which crypto was intended to be used.  Perhaps my views are extreme, but I think it's a waste of time caring about the user experience degrading when they rely on custodian services like that.  It's a weak link and weak links should degrade.  It's not how this stuff was designed to work.  We should instead focus on what can be done better.  Plus, as a bonus, there will naturally be less thefts once people move away from centralised exchanges.

The hardest part is when people think efficiency should be prioritised at the expense of decentralisation.  It's an easy trap to fall into.  Even I was a little guilty of that mindset for a time.  I know better now, though.  It's just something we have to confront when it arises.  Hopefully it will become easier over time as Bitcoin grows and we can more clearly recognise the benefits when compared to more centralised alternatives.  I think it'll be pretty self-evident at some point.



Concurred.  The alignment of incentives holds as true today as it did at the inception of the Bitcoin network.

Sounds like you're feeling left out because no one is using your inane buzzwords.  Despite how often you repeat them, they just don't seem to be catching on.  Also, anyone who understands Bitcoin might argue that decentralisation and security are not "lame excuses" and are actually fundamental to the Bitcoin's success and dominance of the market.  If you would happily sacrifice those important things for the sake of saving a couple of pennies on a tx fee, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree using Bitcoin. 

Arguably, the problem stems from the way Bitcoin was promoted in the past.  It's not that lower fees would promote usage of Bitcoin, it's that Bitcoin was promoted by people on the basis that it had lower fees than sending international bank transfers with fiat.  Somehow that promotion has been warped to the point where some people think Bitcoin should have cheaper tx fees than the various altcoins out there, but that was never part of the deal. 



Say whatever you want.  We're abundantly clear about the part where you don't know how to stop, even when it's obvious you're wrong.  So by all means keep spouting crap and we'll keep telling you why it is you're wrong.  You serve as a fine example to newer forum users on how to destroy your reputation and convince everyone that you can't be trusted or taken seriously.  Hopefully they'll all learn from your many mistakes.  Keep up the sterling work! 



Are you sure it's not about blocksizes?  Because I kinda get the impression that, for you, that's all it's ultimately ever going to be about.  It's the one thing you keep coming back to.  Time and time again.  If you're now considering finally changing the record and talking about something else, I would welcome that.  It should be beyond clear by now, as numerous people have now raised the same point, that throughput has a resource cost.  Until nodes and miners are willing to bear more of that cost, throughput on the base layer is unlikely to increase by any tremendous volume.  We just have to wait for users to welcome that burden willingly.  It's not a choice anyone can make for them.  There is no stagnation in development, as work is visibly being done on many fronts to reduce the size of transactions and find new ways to use the space we have more efficiently (and this isn't "meandering" because you definitely said "stagnate bitcoin innovation" earlier in the thread.  If you bring it up, then others are free to challenge it.  That's how discussions work). 

We have a disproportionately high number of thieves here, though.  And it's likely that many of them would re-offend shortly after being allowed back.  Some might argue, with the punishment as harsh as it is, they should really pay more attention to the rules and not do it to begin with.  Plus, the fact that many of them are now resorting to word-substitutes means they absolutely know what they are doing is wrong.  They're taking deliberate actions to avoid getting caught.  Then they claim they didn't know about the rule.  Don't fall for it.  Enough people have been made an example of, but some people are still doing it.  The opportunity is there for people to learn from the mistakes of others, but they aren't.  That's on them.

I don't want reasons why crap coins are not popular.  How is that possibly the conclusion you arrived at?  My point was that lower fees are not some magical fix which will make Bitcoin more popular.  That's not how it works.  Try to keep up here.  I'm asking you for evidence to support your claims that lower fees would make Bitcoin more appealing.  You are again failing to provide any evidence and deflecting with your moronic "research" catchphrase.  If you want to present the argument that fees need to be lower, it's up to you to justify that argument with something more than conjecture and some vague stories about people who you claim to have spoken to in unnamed parts of the world.  Since I'm not inclined to believe a single word you say, please provide something more concrete.



I seem to be getting some conflicting signals here.  How can we discuss if you keep telling me to ignore you?  I'm happy to continue discussing why there are consequences to increasing throughput.  I'd love to talk about the adverse effects on Bitcoin users who desire the privacy, security and independence only a full node can provide them.  If you want to talk about how to use the ignore button, I'd suggest that's probably a topic for Meta.  Can we now get back to the real cost of lower fees and why you seem to think full nodes should have to pay that cost?  



If you don't like the way I post, kindly "meander" your way off a cliff.  The topic is lower fees and that's what I'm talking about.  If I happen to throw in a few comments about you being a deceitful sack of excrement while I'm discussing lower fees, it's most likely due to the fact that you've earned it.  It not just about what you discuss, it's how you discuss it.  If you discuss things in an underhand way (and just in case you can't comprehend what I'm talking about, it's the "mandatory", "bypass", "stagnate bitcoin", etc you keep spouting at every available opportunity, even when it's not pertinent to the topic, and then you have the audacity to bitch about "meandering" when someone tells you you're talking a load of shit), I will call your integrity into question.  You don't get to call it meandering when you are deliberately excreting that crap into unrelated threads all over the board.

1.  "Do research" is not a response.  It's just something you mindlessly blurt out when you have no compelling arguments to present.  If you aren't able to provide us with any evidence that Bitcoin sees greater levels of adoption when fees are low, then just admit it and move on with your dismal existence.  All I'm hearing are baseless opinions about how you think it might turn out if we did things your way.  That's not sufficient.  Never has been, never will be.  Lower fees are not going to convince the average person to suddenly take an active interest in Bitcoin.  It's going to take a combination of factors and it's not something that is going to happen overnight.  Patience.

2.  Yes, you are trying to tell people what they do or don't need.  You just said again in one of your recent moronic rants that it's mostly just businesses who need to run a full node and that it's somehow not important for other users.  That's total BS and not your call to make.  You do it without even realising you're doing it.  You can't help yourself.  You have your own predetermined goal in mind and you will trample over literally anyone to get what you want.  People can and will decide this stuff for themselves.  You have absolutely no say in it whatsoever.  

3.  I find it hard to believe anyone could stand to be in a room with you for more than 30 seconds, let alone people all over the world having lengthy conversations with you about what they supposedly do or don't want out of Bitcoin.  Call me skeptical, but since you are horrifically untrustworthy, I'd rather hear this directly from them, rather than take your word for it.  Plus, I'll still be telling them exactly what I'm telling you.  There are costs to bear beyond the fee itself and you will recognise that fact.  Security, decentralisation and censorship resistance come at a price.  And, off-topic, but if you have all this wealth to support your lifestyle of jetting around the globe to speak to random people, why aren't you funding development of a wallet with all those "great" features you keep yammering on about?  Is it possible you might be exaggerating just a little about the scale of your advocacy work abroad?  How many "real people" are you claiming to have spoken to, exactly?  

4.  Your definition of the word "mandate" is this context is fundamentally wrong.  No one is making you run anything.  But let's say, hypothetically, we did do things your way (never happening, by the way, purely hypothetically), what makes you believe users would be running this new code that would cause them to accept more throughput.  Considering, after all, they've been given that choice in the past and have refused it.  If users aren't interested in running such code, why would devs waste their time making it?  Why are you completely unable to respect the choices that other users on this network make?  It literally doesn't matter who codes it.  If users are united in their choice to not run code that supports more transactions and lower fees because they don't want to bear the cost of that, then you won't get what you want.  That's just how it is.  Blame the users.  It's completely immaterial who is or isn't coding whatever bullshit you mistakenly think is best.  It's down to the users.  It's their choice.  And no, I'm never going to put you on ignore.  I will continue to draw attention to your manipulative behaviour and challenge your unsubstantiated nonsense wherever I might find it.  Try posting less drivel and you'll give me less cause to call you out on it.  How about that?

Futility, perhaps, but also an exercise in freedom.

I doubt that all the BTC currently changing hands over LN are for the purchase of real-world goods and services.  Some of it is almost certainly just users experimenting, or even just plain dicking about.  And that's their prerogative, I guess.  Providing they are doing it of their own free will, I honestly don't see a problem with it.  They presumably know the risks involved.  If they still want to do it just for the hell of it, then why not?

You are not a bear.  You have no bite.  You have vivid fairytales and fantasies.  You're about as threatening as a cotton bud.


1.  Other coins have lower fees, but people continue to use Bitcoin more than any other cryptocurrency.  Again, if low fees were all people cared about, we'd all be using Dogecoin or something similar.  Clearly Bitcoin maintains sufficient "appeal".

2.  It's not up to you to decide what people do or don't need.  They will continue to make that decision for themselves and express their preference with the software they choose to run.

3.  Just a few posts ago, you were talking about people in countries with low hourly wages.  Why does that argument suddenly go out the window now?  The price of storage and DATA USAGE/BANDWIDTH (the more important factor, as you've been told on dozens of occasions) does not have to be high for you in order for it to be prohibitive in someone else's budget.  Stop being a hypocrite and "put your mind into the context of countries where 5cents is an hours labour" as you phrased it.  

4.  No one is saying it is.  Doesn't mean anyone cares where you think the line should be drawn, though.  Not your call to make.  Run whatever rules you want, but don't expect others to agree with you.


One of these days I hope someone does code a client giving you everything you've ever asked for.  Then, I can watch with glee while you give yourself an aneurysm trying to justify why it has about the same number of users as the client you're running right now.  

He said as he spends the rest of his inane reply talking about completely unrelated and off-topic nonsense.  

Your so-called "cheap" transaction fees have costs which you refuse to acknowledge.  I am wholly on-topic pointing out that non-mining full nodes and miners are stating their intentions in that regard as we speak.  They are choosing to enforce rules which strongly suggest they don't want to bear the cost of your "cheap" transactions.  Why can't you include them in your little crackpot conspiracy theories?  Oh, that's right, they don't fit neatly into your little narrative.  So you sweep them under the carpet and tell everyone to look at the boogeymen developers.  It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly tragic and pathetic.  

Also, if low fees really were the driving force behind adoption, surely we should all be using Dogecoin for our daily spending habits?  No?  Any further "arguments" you'd like to present, or is this just the part where you scream "research" over and over like some brain-damaged kook?  Or how about one of your other catchphrases?  Please keep telling us how you think you're some sort of bear.  All I see is a sad and misguided little creature.

SDUC-compatible nodes could verify it.  Non-SDUC-compatible nodes (i.e. all the current nodes on the network) would not have the functionality to verify it because they won't know of the existence of this new hash, let alone be able to verify it.  The only way it could work in a trustless fashion is if a significant proportion of the network were to adopt it simultaneously.

But you have to admit, it's funny how you never talk about the part where non-mining full nodes and miners are equally culpable in making the network what it is today.  It's almost as though you don't understand how Bitcoin works at all and somehow genuinely believe that devs make all the decisions.  You couldn't possibly be that uneducated, though, surely?  

If or when those securing the chain desire more throughput, then (and only then) will it happen.  Your incessant whining about devs won't expedite it.  Full nodes and miners are the ones who are free to choose what level of burden they are prepared to carry.  It appears as though they're comfortable with what we have now.  There have been an ample number of opportunities for people to run code supporting larger blocks over the years.  But, for the most part, people are sticking with our present route.

But sure, whatever, you keep blaming the people who wrote the code instead of the people who are running it.  It's bound to work one day.    

The training wheels are coming off.  They grow up so fast, heh.   

The timing seems fairly reasonable for it.  Will be interesting to see if users start cautious or immediately begin moving mega-money around.  If I had to guess, it's probably the latter.  There always seems to be that "something to prove" mentality when it comes to new advancements.