Multiple teams do operate.  You can run BU, XT, Classic, TRB, or BTC1.  All of these clients are running on the BTC network right now and are 100% compatible with the current consensus.  None of them support Core's roadmap, but they're all allowed to run on the network.  If enough users decided to run them, consensus would change.  I don't see any problem here, other than the one you're attempting (and failing) to engineer from nothing.



Your (broken) mindset doesn't make the rules.  There is no rule that says a developer working on Core code can't propose a BIP and there never has been.  There is no rule that says changes can't be made via softfork and there never has been.  There is no rule that says the reference client can't introduce new features and there never has been.  I don't think it's unreasonable to describe someone who would try to introduce such rules as an authoritarian, because such rules would clearly undermine freedom and weaken Bitcoin's permissionless nature.  

Also, I know you haven't got code I can point to that would demonstrate your desire to enforce your totalitarian fascist wishes on everyone.  There's a very good reason for that.  Primarily, it's due to the fact that it's not possible to code rules to enforce your demented wishes.  You're asking for the impossible.  There isn't any code on Earth that can force developers to behave in the way you describe above.  Bitcoin will never function like that because you can't control people.  But if it could function like that, we're all abundantly clear on the part where that's how you'd prefer it to be.  

Tell me how you'd stop any developer from coding what they wanted.  Tell me how you can stop Core proposing new features.  Tell me how you'd prevent softforks.  
You don't have answers to any of that.  Because it's not possible.  Cry about it all you want.  It won't change anything.  The above idea of yours is totally unworkable.

And to top it off, you already have a "stable source so others can make their own clients".  That source is called every single previous version of Bitcoin that has ever been released.  You can pick any one of those previous versions and build what you want from it.  Once again proving that you don't even understand what it is you've got and how good it is.  You have all the freedom in the world and yet all you can do is bitch about what other people are doing with their freedom.  



I'd have to care what you think to be concerned about personal attacks you make against me.  You're the one whining about insults.  Say whatever you like about me.  



I don't know how to explain it to you any other way.  I'm sorry if this is too difficult a concept for you to wrap your feeble mind around:

Developers of any codebase can code what they want.  Users are free to run what they want.  If users don't run it, nothing activates.  This applies to all dev teams equally.

As I've explained to you before, I've used the same argument to defend alternative clients.  This is why it's such an effective argument.  It's universal.  In 2016, before the forks started occurring, when Carlton used to argue that alternative clients shouldn't be allowed to "steal" Core's code, I used this exact same argument.  Remember this thread?  I categorically said that anyone is free to code their own proposals if other developers disagree.  Oddly enough, you didn't seem to have any problems at all with me saying that back then, when it suited your argument, so I don't see why you're so opposed to it now.  Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you're now basically using Carlton's arguments that a certain dev team should be restricted in what they can or can't do.  

But neither of you can overcome the argument that all devs are free to code what they want.  Neither of you can change it.  It's a fact.  You can't fight the cold hard reality of how things actually are.  All devs are free to code what they want.  Including the devs you (and Carlton) don't approve of.  Literally the only difference between you and Carlton is that you both hate different groups of developers.  I'm just here being completely neutral and transparent, like BTC itself.  

What you think Core "should" do doesn't matter.  What matters is people are free to code and run anything they like because the system is 100% permissionless.  As such, Bitcoin is working perfectly.  

The Bitcoin network does not care about your unique interpretation of stats from August 2017.  The BTC chain has reached consensus on each and every day since that "event".  Your opinions on the matter are irrelevant.  You don't seem to comprehend the fact that softforks are permitted.  Softforks do not bypass consensus.  If you think they do, it might be wise for you to find another network where softforks aren't permitted and use that instead, rather than just whining about it all the time.  None of your FUD and attempts to re-write history changes what actually happened.  SegWit was activated because consensus was reached.  If that's not how you see it, you clearly don't share the same definition of the word "consensus" as the network does.  That's your problem, not ours.



Yes, Franky1, we've all noticed your immense talent for taking topics that aren't directly discussing SegWit and LN and twisting them to suit your propaganda and FUD.  All it took was someone to mention that CSW has been taking shots at LN, for you to treat that as an invitation for you to join CSW in doing exactly the same (talking a load of easily debunked crap, that is).  Why are you meandering?  Here it is, just in case you need some help in understanding the plain and simple fact that YOU are the one who, as always, takes the thread off-topic:


This is what you do.  You derailed the topic from people talking about CSW and changed it to taking pot shots at LN/SegWit/softforks/devs/etc just like you do in most of the topics you post in.  You're not even subtle about it anymore.  Given even the slightest opportunity, even when it's nothing to do with the topic, you'll start blathering on about "social drama", "consensus bypass", "mandatory upgrade", "tyranny", "developer control" and all your other tedious bullshit catchphrases.  You don't get to talk about "meandering" (your latest catchphrase) when that's all you ever do.  I'm not putting you on ignore, because trolls need shooting down.  However, I strongly encourage everyone else reading this to put you on ignore.  You're the same breed of vile toxic waste as Craig "Scammer" Wright.  Anyone reading this thread can see that.

LN clearly won't end Bitcoin.  It's actually a bigger threat to the altcoins that split away and refuse to support it (which leads me to believe that's why you're so strongly opposed to it, just like CSW).  Bitcoin is going to be fine.  All the people who want to use altcoins because it's faster and cheaper are already doing so, because they've had that option ever since altcoins appeared on exchanges.  All LN and atomic swaps will do, in regard to the altcoins that support it, is provide a safer option for those who wish to do that.  It will be better for the entire crypto-community once centralised exchanges aren't so heavily relied upon.  I'm sorry if you don't approve, because it's happening anyway.  No one is forcing you to use it, so I suggest you respect the fact that some people want to.  There's nothing you can do to stop them.

If you think BTC's speed and fees are so horrific and are genuinely convinced that Bitcoin is going to end because of Lightning, then clearly it's only prudent for you to sell every single satoshi you own and go find a new community to troll.  But we all know you won't, because you're just talking shit, like always.

Use your eyes:

https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/live-map/


They're choosing right now.  Apart from 0.15.1, which wasn't quite full support, all of those clients support SegWit.  The only thing that's being bypassed here is the connection between your sanity and the real world.  

Link?  Chances are, you either didn't understand my post or you're deliberately trying to twist the meaning of whatever it was I said.  There's nothing wrong with merchants diversifying, because that doesn't mean they've moved away from Bitcoin.  Show me a merchant that accepts all the major altcoins but not Bitcoin.  Assuming you can find one, I don't think they'll stay in business very long.

Other coins succeeding doesn't mean that Bitcoin is failing.  There's enough success to go around.  It's not realistic to expect one cryptocurrency to be perfect at everything.  Altcoins will naturally serve some niches in the market.  That's perfectly healthy.  Why fight it?



What's wrong with people using other coins?  Of course people use them.  I have no problem with that.  I'm looking forward to atomic swaps, as I've already explained to you on numerous occasions.  Why would I be looking forward to atomic swaps if I didn't want people using other coins?  Try to keep up.

You're the one saying that we shouldn't have LN because it would somehow promote other coins.  I'm the one saying it won't promote other coins any more than exchanges already do.  
You're the one saying Bitcoin is too slow and too expensive.  I'm the one saying it's not a problem because Bitcoin has the strongest security and network effects and it's still fast and cheap enough to be useful.
You're the one saying other coins being accepted by merchants is bad news for Bitcoin.  I'm the one saying "who cares?" because there's literally nothing wrong with that.  

Stop whining about insults and come up with better arguments.  Or better yet, click that 'ignore' button you're so fond of pointing out lately.  I'm going to keep shooting down your FUD all the while you continue to make that such an easy task by being such a lousy debater.


Speaking of lousy arguments:



It can scale, but not by merely tinkering with the blocksize and pretending that somehow fixes everything.  It doesn't.  And there are costs for doing that.



Users and miners determine consensus.  It cannot be "backtracked" (did you get bored of saying "bypassed"?) because that's something that can only happen in your fantasy la-la-land.



If the community wished for something different, they'd be running different code.  You're the one who is ignoring community wishes because you don't respect the choice the community has already made.

That still isn't an argument against either LN or the long-term future of Bitcoin.  For the most part, people aren't SPENDING those altcoins in the real world.  The only economic activity is playing the markets.  It doesn't matter how cheap or fast an altcoin is if no one accepts it in exchange for goods and services.  Bitcoin is fast enough and cheap enough.  That's all it needs to be.



You don't get to tell people to "think logically" when you're the one being illogical.  Again, people already have the choice.  They've had the choice for years.  And whatever they choose in the short term, Bitcoin has still retained its #1 spot. 

Having been on this forum for as long as you have, it's baffling how you haven't figured out the part where utility, security and network effects are considerably more important than raw speed and generally being tighter than a duck's arse with your tx fees.  Even most of the newbs who've been here less than a month can figure that out.  Either you're trolling, or you're just not very bright.

I assumed it was meant as a partial SPV setup.  Each type of node would be 50% SPV.  But yeah, it's not something that most users would be interested in pursuing as a concept.

Now replace each instance of "LN" with "centralised exchanges" in that quoted text and explain why Bitcoin isn't dead already.  People already have the option to leave Bitcoin in favour of an altcoin, so LN will be no different in that regard (apart from the notable exception that it's better than trusting a centralised exchange with your funds).  Clearly BTC still has enough value and utility for people to keep using it.

I'll demonstrate for you:


Definitely sounds like something that doesn't match up with reality.  No wonder you said it.  

The reason specialised hardware is used to mine is because it doesn't have to waste processor cycles and memory on a general-purpose operating system, a browser, games and whatever else you might have running in the background on your PC.  Doing all that extra stuff means you aren't hashing as much as you could be.  An ASIC can dedicate itself solely to the task of hashing.  It's more efficient.  

Your idea might result in more decentralisation if it were viable.  But it can't be economically sustainable, because the more efficient specialised hardware would perform better and earn more of the block rewards.  There wouldn't be sufficient incentive for the gamers to waste their resources and not get adequately rewarded.  

Plus, gamers tend to care about their ping.  If you keep lagging and you lose the game as a result of hashing on the side, it's going to negatively affect your gaming experience.

All I can really say is hodling has worked for me so far.  But that's not to say you should always do what the hodlers tell you to do.  It's a choice you have to make for yourself.

There have been times where prices dropped below what I paid for my BTC, so if I had been a panic seller, I'd have made a loss.  But I held and prices recovered.  It might not work out this way for everyone, but then that's how markets work.  Place your bets accordingly.  

Treat it in the exact same way as gambling and understand the risks involved.  

Bitcoin was designed to be trustless.  The idea of running a node is that you can validate and verify every single transaction yourself.  If you run a Type A node, you would have to trust the Type B nodes to do half of the validation for you.  If you're going to do that, why not just trust Visa and forget all about Bitcoin?

There wouldn't even be a spawn from the financial crisis, "evil" or otherwise, if the reckless banksters hadn't caused the crisis in the first place.   

To the ECB, I say don't hate Bitcoin, hate yourselves for helping to destroy the global economy.  This is on you.  If you screw it up, you need to accept the repercussions.  Bitcoin is merely the natural reaction to your ineptitude.  Cause and effect.

Pretty sure he's referring to me, since I mentioned the replay protection bit.  Call me crazy, but I don't think it's realistic to expect BTC developers to check to see if we need to take action each and every time some other coin forks away.  We've had enough of them for it to be a hefty workload if devs on this chain had to worry about Gold/Private/Diamond/Zero/Atom/Smart/etc.  It's not up to devs on this chain to keep an eye on what all the altcoins are doing. 

But then, that's pretty much the attitude I'd expect from Franky1, since developers are apparently his slaves to order about.   

And here he is yet again saying that devs working on the reference client shouldn't have the freedom to propose and develop BIPs and other changes, as if that was somehow his call to make.  But even though he's keen on taking peoples' freedom away, he's definitely not an authoritarian.  Nope.  Not at all.   

I mean, If we're going to talk about "project fear", let's start with the demented fruitcake who is convinced that we're on a tyrannical, dev-controlled chain where users have no choice.  I'm pretty sure that sounds like FUD to anyone who isn't wearing a tinfoil hat.

It's worth pointing out that hard forks are only "safe" in the event of the minority fork implementing replay protection.  Otherwise things can get very messy indeed.

Craig Wright is an attention seeking windbag.  Ignore him.  He doesn't deserve your attention.

If you're going to expand on point 6, then point 8 might deserve a little bit more detail too.  I'd personally use "validate" in place of "review" for that one.  You'll probably find this page helpful in seeing just how much is involved when it comes to validation of a block.

My stance remains there are different varieties of full node and that we just need to update our vocabulary a little.  We've always been flexible with this.  I don't see why that should suddenly change now.

A full node can either be selfish or networked.
A full node can either be pruned or archival.
A full node can either place limits on their bandwidth or not.
A full node can either be SegWit-enabled or not.

They'll all reject a block as invalid if the coinbase reward contained 100BTC.
They'll all reject a block as invalid if it was 100mb in size.
They'll all reject a block as invalid if it contained a double spend.
They'll all reject a block as invalid if the block header isn't formatted correctly.

Each help in their own way.  Whatever settings they might have, they're all still enforcing the current consensus rules.



They still fully validate what they can understand.  And again, these nodes still enforce current consensus rules.

Plus, as I alluded to in my first post, if you start to define some nodes as a secondary underclass, you're only playing into the hands of those who seek to create tensions and divisions in the community (and look who showed up shortly after   ).  

But is that not simply a case of updating the technology and not updating the terminology along with it?  If someone invents a flying car, do we suddenly have to stop calling the conventional ones "cars" because the flying cars can utilise extra space that the conventional ones can't?  

I'd argue they are absolutely full nodes.  Every user relaying and verifying transactions is helping the network.  Each user has a choice if they want to utilise SegWit or not.  The best part about SegWit is that it was implemented as an opt-in softfork.  So, having given users that choice, I don't think it's healthy for the community for us to start defining some nodes as a kind of secondary underclass just because they've opted not to support SegWit.  We've had enough in-fighting already.

Using strong terms arguably doesn't achieve anything.  It's our actions that define how resistant the chain is.  If you weaken the network's resistance by making it more costly to run a full node, or you inadvertently introduce a critical vulnerability while making radical changes, using strong terms won't magically make things better.  Which is why our actions so far have been to avoid making it costly to run a full node and avoid making radical changes to the protocol.

It's only right for other chains to attempt to evolve and challenge.  It's a free and open market.  Survival of the fittest.  We should never become complacent.  Every chain will naturally do what the majority of their users think is best to succeed, but incompatible ideas obviously can't work together.  If BCH now has an irreconcilable difference between two factions in their userbase, then yeah, that chain could well split into two.  People then have the freedom to choose.  Exactly as before with the BTC/BCH split.  Consensus could not be reached, so we naturally went our separate ways.  Each to their own.

As for making a similar "upgrade" in BTC's network, by all means feel free to state your case, but we've had that discussion just a few times already (comical understatement) and it seems like people have made up their minds about it for now.  That's not to say it'll never happen, but it's not something that we are going to rush into.