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.

Bitcoin is not a democracy.  It doesn't have elections.  There isn't a "vote", as such.  If that's what you want to see in Bitcoin, I assure you you're going to be disappointed, because I've yet to see any software that could make the Bitcoin network function in such a fashion.  No one cares what you "approve of" because your words don't mean anything.  I don't approve of you being a lying sack of human excrement, but that's not something I can express in code.  So it's irrelevant.  Run the code you want.  Or make new code.  Those are your freedoms to do with as you will.  Your freedom, however, does not entitle you to tell others what they can code.  If you believe it does, you are the authoritarian.

You run the software you like.  That software matches you up with other users who agree with you.  You then form a network and build a blockchain together.    
If you are not compatible with the network, you automatically leave the network and form a new one with other people running code which is compatible with yours.

That's consensus.  

You can't unilaterally change the meaning of consensus to "this group of devs can only code this and not propose new ideas and we have to have a vote and everyone needs to agree and blah blah blah standard Franky1 utter dross blah blah", etc.  You're a moron and you don't understand the first thing about anything.  

You say you don't agree, but you keep running code that makes you compatible with the network you claim you don't agree with.  Just in case you're a little slow on the uptake, I'll repeat that point more slowly and give it the appropriate emphasis:

You say you don't agree but WHAT YOU SAY DOESN'T MATTER.

WHAT YOU RUN MATTERS and you're running code that relays transactions on a network that enforces rules you clearly don't agree with.

I'm not saying you should leave, I'm saying you can.  I'm suggesting it might serve your cause better than your current methods of lying about "developer control" and the other general shit-stirring you seem to believe is effective.  It's clearly not having the desired effect.  You're not having any success at changing this network, so the next best option open to you is to build a new network that proves your ideas are viable.  But good luck with that, because they aren't viable.  At all.  Which is probably why you're still here.

I have to ask at this stage... are you a masochist or something?  Again, you're free to stick around and keep doing it, but I honestly can't tell what you're getting out of it unless it's some sort of pleasure from pain thing.  I mean, you're not blind.  You can obviously see the 9000+ nodes running code you absolutely despise.  Then you see your pitiful, miniscule, insignificant, handful of nodes running code you like, but it doesn't even touch the sides.  You are wholly impotent.  And yet, you seem to think your best course of action is to stay on this network and then spend vast quantities of your spare time whining about it like a total pussy because you can't get what you want?  Seriously?  If you had a hope in hell of getting what you wanted, then sure, stick around and fight for it.  But as we've established on numerous occasions, not only is what you want impossible, it's also terrible.  The numbers against you are insurmountable.  If anything, support for your ideology is diminishing rather than growing.  No amount of your insane protests are going to change what is clearly a total failure on your part to present a compelling case.  But whatever, stay and keep derailing topics.  It's not like you're having any impact other than being a general annoyance.

You post about PoS in topics that aren't about PoS and then you wonder why it gets deleted?  You're a special kind of special, aren't you?

If I had been in charge in 2009, I'd make sure I did all the things that annoy Franky1 before he ever got into Bitcoin, so that he might have never got involved to begin with and we might be spared the horrors of his incessant whiny bitching.



You don't want people to understand consensus, you want to distort and pervert the meaning of the word "consensus" to something that suits your bullshit propaganda.  You are attempting to brainwash people.  Fortunately, most people aren't stupid enough to fall for it.  Most people understand that those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  The simple and undeniable fact is that 9000+ nodes are running Core software.  None of the supposedly bad things you whine about (in every goddamn thread, seemingly) would have happened if people chose to run other clients instead.  You can leave at any time if you don't approve of the decisions which the people securing this network are freely choosing to make.  Your quarrel lies with them.  They're running the code you don't like.  

All I see are a bunch of words.  What are you even trying to say with this topic?  Is it just another lame KingScorpio "Bitcoin bad, shitcoin good" thread?  It's not like this is your first attempt at doing that, so surely you should be better at it by now.



Who cares what they "seek".  Either they have it or they don't. 



I think by "often", you mean "seldom".  Most altcoins are created for the purposes of greed.

If all subsequent replies to this topic could change the 'Subject' heading to:

Re: Weak hands lose.  That is no surprise.

Contrary to popular belief, Bitcoin's purpose is not to "experience a bull run" so you can sell it to accumulate more of your national currency.  What I'd like to see happen in 2019 is for more people to realise that freedom is worth whatever price it happens to be.



Exchanges generally do what's best for themselves.  If you have to use an exchange, try to use one that isn't doing things you disapprove of.  Or, better yet, cut out the middleman altogether if you can.



ICOs will increasingly become a byword for "unfinished crap" as people slowly start to realise what empty promises are actually worth.  Avoid.



Well, for starters, I don't think it's possible to make a bigger mess than the banksters did.  Also, it's a bit late to ask this question since Bitcoin users have been self-governing since the genesis block.  That was a while ago now.



Hype comes and goes.  Sound fundamentals and underlying principles are here to stay.  Consider me unconcerned about what's trendy.  "Flossing" (AKA dancing like a bellend) is considered trendy.  That doesn't mean I should care about it.

As I continue to point out and you willfully ignore, you are talking about nodes running the /BTC1 client.  Those are the clients that were disconnected from the network due to concerns over replay protection.  BU have not been forked off.  XT have not been forked off.  TRB have not been forked off.  Classic have not been forked off.  BCH forked of their own volition, just like they announced they would months earlier.  BCH nodes don't count towards consensus on this chain, despite the fact you clearly wish they did.  Obviously some of the people that previously ran nodes on the BTC network made the decision to follow the BCH chain instead.  They chose that.  But you just want to pretend that they were all forced out.  As always, the reality is very different to what you portray.

It's worth pointing out that BTC1 also would have forked voluntarily if it meant they got the 2MB blocks they wanted.  I'd have followed that chain alongside this one and held both coins if that had happened.  But the main point is, you need to stop deliberately conflating BCH and BTC1 like a manipulative shitweasel.  It only makes you look even more dishonest than I already think you are.

Also, please tell us how Core faked the 90%+ hashrate that locked in SegWit.  Can't wait to hear what fantastical imaginary delusions you come up with in an attempt to explain that one away.  

Just accept that your REKT campaign is dead in the water, that you have barely any support for your "emergent consensus" lunacy and that BTC will increase on-chain scaling as and when users are ready to support that.  Just wait patiently if you want larger blocks.  Why is that so hard for you?  You might be ready, but others are not.  You can't force other nodes to accept larger blocks, just like they can't force you to validate SegWit transactions.  You run what you want to run, we'll run what we want to run (and you'll probably continue to cry that it's not fair for various illogical "reasons").

---

//EDIT:  So you went back and added more to your post to look appear as though you do actually want to discuss scaling instead of your broken interpretation of consensus.  How very convincing.   


I'm pretty sure the onus is on you to first prove that we were promised by a developer that the full 4mb would definitely be used.  Every time I saw a dev comment on this matter, they were quite clear that the full 4mb would be highly improbable and that the average would definitely be less than that in practice.

Consensus is whatever those securing the network decide it is.  Not you.  90%+ of the network hashrate and thousands of nodes reached consensus and decided it was SegWit.  SegWit has helped with scaling (which is the topic, so please stop derailing the topic).



You're demanding that everyone has to agree before anyone can code anything
You're demanding that no one can code anything with a predetermined activation date
You're demanding that no one utilise softforks in their code
You're demanding that no users start any REKT campaigns
You're demanding that Core contributors shouldn't be allowed to propose new ideas because Core is just a reference client

Also, the topic is scaling, please stick to that.



If you can't stick to the topic, start a new thread.  I can point out the new topic button if you need assistance with that.

It's not a flip flop, you dullard.  They can code anything, but it doesn't mean anything unless users agree with it and run it.  You're the one proposing the impossible where everyone has to agree on what they can code before they're "allowed" to code it.  Get a clue.  Describing what you advocate as "impractical" would be the understatement of the millennia.  In terms of the size of blocks and overall throughput, Bitcoin has exactly as much "scaling" (the size of blocks is arguably unrelated to scaling, but don't let that stop you) as its users currently desire.  That may change in future, so just wait patiently like a sane person.



And everyone can see your ongoing REKT campaign.  It's just less effective than its predecessors.



You can't even reach agreement on what a full node is.  You want to hold the untenable position that non-SegWit nodes are not full nodes but should still have a say in what consensus is.  I say you run a full node, you say you don't.  There is literally no reasoning with you.  Clearly you haven't been forked off the network yet, which is a real shame.  I wish it were that easy to get rid of you.  Again, if users didn't like the current rules, they would run different code.  Again, despite your inane protests, users are running Core's code, which means they agree with Core's scaling roadmap.  Or do you think they are all idiots who run code they hate?  You're like those door-to-door religious cranks who think people are so stupid that they couldn't find one of your churches if they wanted to convert to your batshit insane belief system.



You've been told many times that your interpretation of said data and history borders on the psychotic.  And that's when you're not just plain making shit up.  Try taking off the tinfoil hat and being less paranoid.  Your ideas for scaling (stop derailing the thread and stick to scaling, which is the actual topic) are terrible and hardly anyone agrees with them.  Go away with your EC crap.  We don't want it.

Except for the part where that's total drivel and several alternative clients have proposed different upgrades over the years.  You're running a non-Core client on the BTC network right now, so clearly it is "allowed".  There is nothing to stop anyone coding a brand new client which is compatible with the current consensus rules, so it runs on the BTC network, but proposes changes to the protocol rules at any desired activation threshold.  How can it be "not allowed" in a permissionless system?  You're the one who's trying to make it so that devs are "not allowed" to do stuff.  Stop being a hypocrite.

"Victims of the word HODL"?  That's some next-level snowflake shit right there.    

Take some personal responsibility.  It's up to you when you buy and when you sell.  Don't blame everyone and everything else because you didn't get it right.

You can complain about ICOs and scams if you like.  But if you can't see that handing over money to complete strangers on the internet for a bunch of half-baked ideas isn't very sensible, you're probably playing the wrong game.  I've only ever bought coins that were already being actively traded and appeared to have sound fundamentals.  I made sure I knew what I was getting into.  That strategy has served me reasonably well so far.  If you listened to someone who told you that buying an unfinished shitcoin based on some marketing gimmickry would be profitable, why not learn something from that mistake and do better next time?

Also, Bitcoin introducing KYC would result in the fastest drop in price yet.  I'd dump mine in a heartbeat if we went down that route (and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one).  If you're going to come up with suggestions, at least think them through to conclusion.

If you like, you can alert every branch of your bank on Earth, along with your card provider when you buy a pack of gum.  Me, personally?  I'd just use some physical coins for that.  Bitcoin hasn't reached a stage where it's suitable for the task you're describing here.  Patience, though...

The IMF have already been approving multi-million dollar stimulus packages all over the world throughout November and December so far.  They're warning that they're underfunded to deal with any serious global instability.  Their role appears to be more of a "damage limitation" rather than a fully fledged bailout now.

It's excessive to say fiat is going to collapse, but it's not wrong to suggest the global financial crisis is far from over.  The IMF have recently been warning that "storm clouds are gathering", but that might just be because they want more money to play with.

Okay, that wasn't the actual headline.  But still, I'm pretty sure that's what they're really saying here:

IMF warns storm clouds are gathering for next financial crisis


At first the article sounds pretty reasonable and sensible:


But then as the article continues, the true motivation is revealed:


"Bail us out so we can bail you out"?  Is that it?  Great plan.  I'm sure printing more money out of nowhere and throwing it at the problem is going to solve everything.  


//EDIT:  The Independent are now reporting it too.

Pretty much my reaction.  I'm happy to judge the book by its cover on this one.  This sounds like a load of nonsense.  First impression is it's just someone abusing Satoshi's name to draw attention to their ill-informed babble.

Pretty sure the only people looking for "miracles", or any other kind of divine intervention, are the ones who saw Bitcoin as a get-rich-quick scheme and invested a little more than they now feel comfortable with.  Bitcoin is fine.  Perhaps it's merely your own personal finances that need a miracle?

It makes perfect sense.  As with most exchanges, they're going to be chasing raw volume over quality or real-world utility.  List anything and everything with even a hint of a buzz about it.  "All aboard the hype-train, make lots of trades plz".