You've made 44 posts in the space of ~7 hours.  It's not surprising some of them get deleted if you're posting at such an obscene frequency.

Not to mention the part where you're lucky you still have an account at all.  It looks like you've only just got back from being banned and it doesn't seem like you've learned anything.

How do you propose something and then basically say "this is not about the thing I'm literally proposing right now"?  

Perhaps it would allow us to forego the continual hardfork drama, but it's still not remotely as simple and clear-cut as you're making it out to be.  There are very good reasons why people are opposed to such a system and if you aren't even going to attempt to overcome the objections and only talk about the positives, then don't expect people to take this proposal seriously.

That part was covered under 'Intellectual Property', as it naturally covers things like brand names and copyright:

It doesn't have to be an integer, so let's get rid of that myth too.  Why not:

1.25mb base/5mb weight,
1.5mb base/6mb weight,
1.75mb base/7mb weight
2mb base/8mb weight
and so on?  

It's not just about it happening "over time", it's also about sensible increments.  Based on what you've witnessed to date, it should be more than obvious that most BTC users are in no rush to double or quadruple the base.

Pffft.  I don't need lawyers, courts or governments to acknowledge my ownership.  That's what the blockchain is for.  It's kinda the whole point.

Shame you are missing the point of permissionless.

And again, you would only make Bitcoin more centralised if the community had to approve code before anyone could write it.  Don't dodge the argument by telling me I'm missing the point when you're deliberately evading the point.  You can't insist on a handicap for one dev team and then claim you want a level playing field.  It's already level, because anyone can code what they want.  Clearly what you want is an un-level playing field where the dev team you don't like have restrictions on what they can do, but everyone else is free to do whatever.  In the past, others have demanded the same un-level playing field, except stacked against alternative clients.  They argued (wrongly) that the developers of alternative clients needed permission from the community to publish the code they did.  I defended the alternative clients. 

How can I be the one missing the point of decentralisation when my argument defends the right of everyone to code what they want?  That means we get multiple clients.  You're the one arguing that developers need to have permission from the community to code stuff and alternative clients would simply not get that permission.  That means we would only get ONE client (and it wouldn't be the one you want).  You should be agreeing with me on this, not fighting me. 



You're demanding a change in the way developers act.  You don't have any code to show because it isn't possible for code to achieve what you're demanding. 



You're using your veto right now by running a non-Core client.  If enough people did that, consensus would change.  The problem you appear to be having is that most people on the network have no desire to use their veto.  They don't want consensus to change. 

Cue Franky1 deflecting from all of these points instead of countering them in 3... 2...

Which means someone made a compelling argument about the idea and most of the developers in that team agreed with it.  Ideas can come from anywhere, including from developers themselves.  Saying that developers shouldn't work on an idea just because a developer proposed it isn't a mature or realistic stance.

I don't know where you get this perverse notion that developers need permission from the community before they are allowed to code something.  And crucially, if you start making the argument that it should work that way, then you will totally destroy any opportunity for alternative clients to exist.  Would the community have given the green light to the developers of that client you're running right now?  I find that pretty doubtful.  You think "REKT" is bad?  See how much you complain if no one was even allowed to code anything unless the community gave their blessing first.  That's how you ruin decentralisation.

Be careful what you wish for.  You really aren't thinking this through to conclusion.

It might be worth considering that if all you ever do is verbally abuse them, they might not be very receptive to what you're saying.  It's not just about having a good idea, it's about how you present it and (particularly in your case) how you conduct yourself while doing so.  

I could have the best idea in the world, but if I spent the entire time slagging off the people who I'm trying to convince to adopt it, it stands to reason that's not going to go the way I'd like it to.

It's overly simplistic to talk about whether developers "should" or "shouldn't" listen to the community.  It's not that black and white.  Each and every single idea has to be treated on a case-by-case basis.  What this is really about is that each developer and dev team is naturally going to produce the code which they believe is most likely to lead to Bitcoin's overall long-term success.  It's not practical for them to implement every random idea people throw out there.  Many of the ideas people suggest (or demand) are not viable.  So they have to be selective and focus on the few decent ideas.  But how can they know your idea is decent if they can't even hear it over all the conspiracy theory babble and outright FUD you constantly spout?  If you want the community to take your idea on board, the onus is on you to present a reasonable argument to support your case and convince them that your idea is actually worth implementing.  Then, with community support, developers are more likely to listen.  If they are then convinced your idea has merit, they are more likely to implement it.  Or, as always, feel free to skip that process and either pay someone to code it, or code it yourself and see how the community reacts then.

But don't just demand shit like an entitled child and then insult the developers when they inevitably ignore you.  When has that attitude ever worked for you in the real world?  That's not how you get what you want.  Try being an adult about this.  Yes, I think you have a good idea, but you really need to work on your people skills.  All you've earned for your efforts so far is negative feedback from a developer.  If you had been more reasonable from the offset, things could have been very different.  Seriously re-think your posting habits and mannerisms in general.  You only have yourself to blame if people aren't taking you seriously.

All that put aside, I will start a topic about fee priority for you if you don't think you can conduct yourself appropriately.  But I think it would be healthy for you to start one, while taking on board what I've said above and really watching your tone.  Maybe even open with an apology for your behaviour to date.  It's not too late to change.

Wow.  That has to be one of the dumbest sentences anyone has ever published in the history of the internet.  And the dumbfuck award goes to Nathaniel Popper.

If you just stuck to raising points like this, rather than simply attacking everything that others are trying to build, I wouldn't have to spend so much time arguing with you.  This is one of those rare cases where we actually agree on something.  My only minor critique with this post is that you did a much better job of explaining this concept here:


I've yet to hear any technical arguments from anyone as to why this isn't a good idea and something we should be seriously looking at.  In fact, I'd even suggest you start a new topic in Development & Technical Discussion just for this point alone.

It's just a distraction, keep your eyes on the prize.

Iran have suffered with far too much Western meddling over the years, mostly from the US and Britain.  As far as I'm concerned, they're well within their rights to circumvent these ridiculous sanctions.  If Iran ends up using Bitcoin, or some other form of cryptocurrency, to achieve that, it would prove beyond doubt that the traditional banking system is becoming weaker and that there is a viable alternative.  If America want to maintain dominance through the dollar, this could easily backfire on them.  America won't be able to use money as a weapon if people don't solely rely on using that particular type of money.  Sanctions would effectively hurt America more than the nations they try to sanction if the result is that other nations adopt crypto instead. 

It's easy to point to low quality posts, but what would be more constructive is if we made an effort to elevate these topics by providing high quality replies.  I'm convinced that when topics consist primarily of nothing more than generic one or two liner replies, it effectively serves as an invitation for lazy posters to just "add to the pile".  But once a legitimate discussion breaks out, any further low quality posts tend to stand out more and will be easier to report and weed out.  It stands to reason that the more topics we can salvage, the healhier that board will start to look.  

Improve the threads, don't just complain about them.

That said, many topics do need locking much sooner, before they can reach the state some of them are in.  Some of them are just too far gone to be saved.

So the pertinent question becomes:

Why are we giving them both so much attention?

And I don't just mean this thread, but countless others as well.  Based on nothing more than the fact that we've heard their names mentioned in the media.  What is it that leads us to keep talking about these two people?  Why does everyone naturally assume that they're even worth talking about?

If there's anyone to blame it's the people who don't understand markets and can only talk about celebrity gossip.  If you think these particular individuals have too much influence, that's probably because you're giving it to them by hanging on their every word.  If no one paid attention to them, they'd be irrelevant.  Remember that Simpsons episode?

Off topic, but I thought RNC and all related accounts were banned?  I did have a link, but copying it on a phone is a ballache.

//EDIT:   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2617240.msg31377296#msg31377296
RNC admitted to ban evasion and being Anti-Cen there.

I think this thread can be summarised in meme form:



As a community, we always seem to be making mountains out of molehills.  Again, this BCH sideshow is not a big deal.  

Everyone feel free to use this image in any other topics where this same discussion comes up.  I'm guessing there will be plenty of opportunities.  Alternatively, the original image is here if anyone wants to make their own version.

Oh look, here comes Franky1 to derail yet another topic with yet more conspiracy theory drivel. 


Was it, though?


But then you will argue, as you've done before, that BitcoinABC and ViaBTC are "Core's side" because they happen to share a common source of funding (even though anyone with an even remotely rational mind will understand that is a totally ridiculous and absurd claim).  Just because DCG.co have their fingers in many pies, that doesn't mean you get to blame a particular group of developers for everything your fractured mind perceives to be wrong.

Nothing that wouldn't carry privacy implications.  Technically, you could link to the tx in a block explorer, but the seller might not appreciate you highlighting an address that belongs to them.  And you might not wish to reveal the address you're using.  So yes, there's not much else you could provide as a reference if either of you care about your privacy.

There seem to be quite a few people in this thread who need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  It's really not the big deal people are making it out to be.  Alarmist panic over nothing.

Sit back, eat some popcorn and enjoy the fireworks.  This amusing little sideshow is merely the flavour of the month.  We have these little dramas and then everyone forgets about them and moves on to the next over-hyped controversy.  Rinse, repeat.