So you thought you'd help by encouraging yet more negativity?  Sound logic there.   

Try starting the types of discussion you'd like to see. 

There are no "orders".  Devs are producing code and people are choosing to run it of their own volition.  If they chose to run something else, the law would be different.  Running code is not a "vote" on what the law should be, it's literally enforcing the laws users want to enforce.  Not "what should be", but "what is".  We don't have to all come to an agreement on what the law "should be" before anyone writes the code.  People just select the code they want and start enforcing rules.  Enforcement may include rejecting blocks that don't conform to that law, or disconnecting other clients that don't conform to the law.  Those securing the chain decide what the law is.  Not devs.  


 

Say it as many times as you like.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus.  It's plain as day.  You've lied about it so many times that you've somehow managed to convince yourself it's the truth.  But it isn't.  It's not possible for us to "understand" the way you believe you do, because the things you're talking about only exist in your fevered imagination.  It's all in your head.  Your "understanding" is not based on anything real or tangible.  You only comprehend fairly tales and are totally oblivious to how things actually are.  9000+ nodes are clearly in agreement on what consensus is, which means you are demonstrably wrong.  Reality doesn't lie.  That's your specialty.

Once you've understood weight, then you can read about the scale factor, also referred to as the discount factor. 

That's not a flip flop.  If you are incapable of comprehending the difference between voting and running code, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.  Democracy is weak.  Just like your "arguments".  



You are making shit up again.  You are a disgusting liar.  I had a notification on the 18th to say that one of my posts had been removed by a moderator.  I have deleted nothing.  

You're still the only one who thinks there has been a "consensus bypass", but okay, whatever.  I know I'd defend the rights of alternative clients to use softforks and activation dates because it's up to users if they want to run that code.  I would argue that users should have that choice.  Freedom, etc. 



If you ever figure out the "how", I'd love to hear it.  Your so-called bypass was the result of people running code and you can't stop them doing that.

Quoted for posterity.  Let's hope you're finally starting to get it.  Any dev can code anything.  Otherwise the militant Core supporters (not me) will argue that alternative clients can't write the things they want to write.  Much like some people have tried to argue in the past, leading me to defend the rights of those alternative clients.  You act like I'm the enemy here, but believe it or not, my stance does a better job of preserving freedom for alternative clients than your stance. 

The REKT campaigns were the primary culprits of perpetuating the myth that other developers shouldn't be allowed to code what they wanted.  That means anyone who argues that Core can't use activation dates or softforks is only making it more acceptable for the next REKT campaign against an alternative client to say those devs can't do whatever they might be doing.  It's therefore the far more intelligent argument to make that anyone can code anything, even if you don't approve of it.  Think it through and you'll see that I'm right about this.

Discussions tend to be more productive if you don't keep repeating the same thing over and over again when it's abundantly clear that what you are discussing is not possible to implement.  Or do I take it that you will finally stop saying roadmaps can't have softforks or activation dates when they clearly can?  You get told quite plainly in one topic that you can't prevent softforks and activation dates without sacrificing permissionless freedom, but all you do is move onto the next topic to repeat the same dumb thing.  

You could post your usual lies about me only supporting the one dev team, or you could accept the simple fact that the way things are now provides a healthier environment to alternative clients than the restricted environment you propose.  And don't pretend you aren't proposing it.  You've been saying it for months.  But if you're done saying it, then hallelujah.

CDs are a weak analogy.  Code is more flexible in what it can do and how easy it is to change.  As such, Bitcoin is in a much better position to adapt than any sort of physically manufactured product. 



How does this make any sense?  It's going to evolve but still be obsolete?  Which is it?

The US will place all their attention on the points where BTC is traded for USD and other national currencies.  They'll try to enforce their will on the exchanges, merchants and other third party services.  There's not a great deal else they can do.

You know full well that all of your unilateral changes have nothing to do with code and everything to do with telling people what they supposedly can or can't do.  Users ran code you don't like that utilised a softfork, so you say we shouldn't have softforks anymore.  A very small number of users ran code you don't like that had an activation date, so you say we can't use activation dates anymore.  You keep saying "show me the code", but nothing you're advocating can be achieved with code.  You're advocating a social contract.  Something vaguely akin to an honour system.  It's not viable.  You can't prevent people from coding something you don't like.  Accept it.  What you want is impossible.

//EDIT:  and if the community ever did find a way to stop people coding things they didn't like, it would be the client you are running that would be the first victim.  Be careful what you wish for and understand how much more you'd be complaining if we actually had the kind of Bitcoin you mistakenly believe you want.

If you had bothered to acknowledge the point made in the first post, you might have noticed concern has been expressed about the rate at which the total size of the blockchain is growing.  Obviously you don't care, but others do.  Understand your audience.  Try just for a moment to appreciate that you are not the only user on this chain.  If users want to run code that utilises scale witness factor, they can.

It's something that the community spent a long time fighting about.  As others have stated, we aren't actually using the full 4MB.  Plus, the size of SegWit blocks are actually pretty reasonable considering that some of the earliest proposals about raising the blocksize were suggesting up-to-20MB blocks.
 


Since LN relies on being able to both open and settle channels on-chain, blocks can't be too small.  Otherwise it could potentially cause issues with timelocks expiring if someone is spamming the blockchain.  The increase SegWit provides was deemed a fair compromise.



Franky1 is a renowned troll and LN detractor.  He despises SegWit and Lightning, so he occasionally makes shit up and hopes people believe it.

Fair point.  It does seem a little suspicious that there are two exchanges that get a glowing report and the rest are all terrible.  Maybe we should take these findings with a pinch of salt until it's clear that this transparency institute really are as transparent as they claim.

Show me the code Mussolini wrote.
Show me the code Stalin wrote.
Show me the code Kim Jong-un wrote.

You're still a cunt.

LIE.

You're dictating it has to be 95% support to activate a fork.  You're dictating we can't use softforks.  You're dictating we can't use activation dates in forks. 



LIE.

Devs can suggest a threshold.  They can't enforce one.  Those securing the chain make that decision.  As it happens, SegWit was activated by 90%+ of the hashrate.



LIE.

I can prevent nodes connecting to my node if I want.  That's my decision.  I have had that right since I first fired up my node.  SegWit has not changed this.  If I want to run code that disconnects a particular client, that's my call.  Not yours.



LIE.

"Promoting" things on an internet forum is not related to consensus.  Consensus is determined by the code people are running.  Not by what is said on the internet. 



Said the forum's #1 fan of Kardashians.   

LIE.

Any fork can be activated at any threshold.  It depends what code those securing the chain choose to run. 

For hardforks, you are more than welcome to run software that sets activation at 95% if that's what you want.  But if enough users are running code that allows a fork to activate at a lower threshold, then that's what will happen.  There is no rule that states it always has to be 95%.

For softforks, you are more than welcome to run software that doesn't support the fork at all.  But if you've made the choice to do that, then you accept the consequences that you may need to trust others that did choose to support the fork.  Much like you accept the consequences that you need to trust others if you choose to run an SPV client.  Run what you want, but understand what the implications are.

You don't get to dictate that forks can't activate with a lower threshold.  Users are free to decide this for themselves.

How you could derive such utter falsehoods from my words is beyond comprehension.  Once again, you're literally just making shit up.  I prefer freedom.  I will continue to defend that preference against your incessant lies and manipulations.  Users have a choice.  They're making that choice right now.  You just don't like it.  Your idiotic notions of "voting" are worthless.  Here, we run code.  That's all that matters.



My mindset is that I respect the decisions which those securing this chain have made.  You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.  That's not how consensus works.  

You want everyone to follow you, but no one is, so you pretend something must be wrong with how things work.  Why wouldn't everyone naturally want that things you want?  Oh right, it must be a conspiracy.  An all-powerful cabal of developer overlords preventing users from making decisions for themselves.  Clearly everyone has been brainwashed into downloading and running their software.  They don't have the free will or self-determination to do anything else, such as run the client you're running, for example.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact your ideas are stupid and no one cares about them.  Yep, definitely a conspiracy.  

Stop pretending you speak for the community.  They speak for themselves by running the code that enforces their will.  All you speak is a total load of bollocks.  

I'm actually a little surprised there are two exchanges that don't fake their volume.  I naturally assumed they all did.  Still, those two are probably doing something else illicit.  Bitfinex still have that Tether shadow looming over them.

Ah yes, the inevitable point in the thread where Franky1 thinks telling people to research stuff will somehow make them agree with him.  

Your years spent studying and researching Bitcoin somehow led you to see tyranny.  Mine, freedom.  I can't even begin to imagine how you think you've learned anything and would be in a position to teach anyone anything when you look at freedom and see tyranny.  You see conspiracy where there is none.  Your brain isn't wired up right.  People could research Bitcoin for the rest of their natural life and still not perceive things the way your special mind does.  Why not tell people to research the moon landings being fake?  Maybe you can call that a social drama and see if it helps your fruitless cause.



How can you fix it by saying something that is demonstrably untrue?  If you want elections, stick with the corrupt and bought system that still calls itself Democracy, when in practice, it's usually Plutocracy or Kleptocracy instead.  Consensus > Voting.  Bitcoin has never and will never be a democracy.

Screw your pathetic and antiquated notions of "voting".  Voting is centralised.  Voting is choosing a puppet to speak for you and then fail to do all the things they promised they would do in their manifesto.  Voting is choosing a middleman from a list of worthless middlemen.  Voting leads to corruption and lobbying.  The real power then stems from the money used to fund the election campaigns.  What we have is people freely expressing their will through code without a middleman.  We don't need people to speak for us.  We don't need to choose middlemen.  We aren't susceptible to corruption and simply buying the laws wealthy people want.  Why do you want to change what we have into something worse?



You are the misguided one.  You say that "up" is actually "down" and then when everyone asks what's wrong with you, you tell them there's a conspiracy to hide the truth from them.  



Not only do you keep trying to change the meaning of words like "consensus" and "decentralisation", but you keep forgetting about permissionless.  You avoid the word like the plague.  Probably because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Bitcoin does not have a General.  No single person or group is "in charge".  But yet you argue that one group is in charge and then expect people to take you seriously?  People have eyes.  They can see that you are wrong.  Just because 9000+ nodes happen to be running software made by one dev team, it does not mean that dev team are now "controlling the network".  If that dev team did something users didn't like in their next version, people might not run that software in future.  



You mean "Emergent Consensus", right?  That hilarious part where you try to pretend the type of consensus you want to see in Bitcoin just so happens to be the type of consensus that even the people who invented it can't agree on it and don't actually use it.  Because it's crap.  

I've clearly demonstrated my understanding of consensus.  All you've demonstrated is that you think consensus means "I can tell this group of developers they shouldn't propose new BIPs and we all have to agree on what code to write before it's even written and consensus is democracy when it isn't and Bitcoin used to have voting when it didn't and let's make up some more complete nonsense and tell people to research it even though it isn't true and forget what punctuation is and remember to mention social drama and blah blah blah typical Franky1 post blah blah kardashians", etc.

I don't discount the statistical probability that, of the many dozens of times you've posted about PoS, you might have managed to do it in a relevant thread on at least one occasion.  But it's usually in topics where it doesn't belong, such as this one.