Describing the futility of your efforts is not an insult.  You can't think of a viable way to prevent softforks.  How is it an insult to point out the simple fact that what you want isn't practical?  Stop dodging the real issue here.  You hate SegWit and Lightning, but you can't stop them.  So you make up a story and hope people buy it.  But you've now repeated the story so often that you believe it, as though it were actually true.  It isn't.  There was no consensus bypass.  Because there's no such thing.  Individuals can't prevent softforks.  Everyone is free to do what they want, but they can't stop others from doing the same.  If you break consensus, you get forked off. 

With the frequency you use them, they're clearly your buzzwords now.  Maybe one day you'll figure out no one cares.



No, I said individuals couldn't veto it.  Nothing anyone can do.  The community, if in agreement, can absolutely veto things they don't approve of.  Like how they vetoed 2x nodes staying connected to the network.  An individual couldn't have disconnected them all.  It took lots of people for that to happen.  You can't veto me using SegWit.  And I honestly don't see why you'd think you have the right to.  If the whole community wanted to veto me using SegWit, that would be a different story.  I'd then be the one pissing into the wind.  But no, it's you doing that.  Again.



If we used your perverted definition of consensus, which is "it's only consensus when Franky1 agrees with it", sure.  Back in the real world, though, consensus is not determined by a statistic on a given day of your choosing.  Consensus is constant and unyielding.  It's happening right now and it says SegWit is fine.  You are failing the consensus test every time you say devs are in control.  You are failing the consensus test if you think a past date is more important than the code people are running right now, this very second.  You are failing the consensus test if you think you get to tell users and developers what they can or can't do.



Okay, cool, whatever.  Enjoy your "tyranny" of total freedom.  I take it you aren't going to answer those questions about how you'd prevent softforks then?  Figured as much.  I'll accept that as your failure to present a valid formative stance, let alone find a practical path to achieve a predetermined goal.  You don't know what you want and you wouldn't know how to get there if you did.  

It is the community's decision.  They have already decided.  If no one had run the softfork code, nothing would have happened.  No individual person can veto it when the community decide to support the idea.  I'm sorry if you see that as flip flopping because you don't understand how consensus works and somehow think you get to singlehandedly derail everything that other users of this network are supportive of.  Consensus has never meant you get to prevent people from either creating or running code that is implemented via softfork.  If you think that's how it works, show me in the code where it says that.

Earlier today, my friends and I ordered pizzas as part of a deal that was on offer.  Three 12" pizzas for £21.  Those are the "rules" in this particular deal.  So we had one each.  But you can still add stuffed crust and extra toppings if you like.  So even though my two friends had the standard pizzas with no extras, I added some Mexican Chicken and stuffed crust to mine.  It had no impact on their pizzas.  They got exactly what they wanted.  They didn't resent me for adding additional stuff to mine.  We all got what we asked for.  What's the problem there?  I guess you would have thrown a fit over that.  "How dare someone add extra stuff without my prior consent and approval?  My consensus has been bypassed!"  



Code means nothing if no one runs it.  Your problem is that people are running it.  You wish they wouldn't, but you can't stop them.  



You have a choice.  You've already made it.  Despite having made your choice, you still feel entitled to bitch about the choice everyone else is making.



What's wrong is that you can't argue your point, so you avoid the questions and start repeating "social drama" like it's a pull-string on your back.  You're meandering.  Answer the questions:

a) What's your "fix" to prevent softforks?  
b) Why do you think anyone other than you would even want to prevent softforks?
c) Are you happy to compromise permissionless freedom to satisfy your desire to veto any ideas you personally disagree with?

You don't have an answer to any of those questions because the only solution you can come up with is for you to tell the devs they can't do it.  And then you know I'll point out that's something a totalitarian fascist would say.  So by all means keep avoiding the inevitable outcome where you reveal yourself to be an authoritarian who hates freedom.  It's not an insult if it's a clear observation of your natural tendencies.

Every time you say "developers have too much control", I hear "developers have too much freedom" and that you want to take that freedom away.  You can't prevent softforks without taking away freedom.  Cause and effect.  No amount of complaining about what I'm saying or how I'm saying it will change the fact that what you want isn't possible unless you're comfortable with destroying the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin.  

Such is the nature of softforks.  It's not some sordid secret devs have "admitted" or a crime they have confessed to.  That's just how softforks work.  Not every feature is practical to implement via backwards-compatible softfork, but for those that can be, there's nothing anyone can do to veto them (unless it's a majority of those securing the network vetoing them in unison).  Anyone is free to code it and anyone is free to run it.

If you can't abide by that:

a) What's your "fix" to prevent it?  
b) Why do you think anyone other than you would even want to prevent it?
c) Are you happy to compromise permissionless freedom to satisfy your desire to veto any ideas you personally disagree with?

---

I honestly don't see what developers have to do with what centralised exchanges and the SEC are doing.  The "resistance" property demonstrated by the longevity of the network is primarily the result of the people running the software.  Ordinary people strengthening the network purely by participating.  In a scenario where the state were to mandate that users had to register to a central authority or apply for a licence to be legally entitled to run the software, or even ban the use of the software entirely, how many people would comply with that?  I'd imagine it's about the same number who comply with the state's laws regarding peer-to-peer file sharing and copyright infringement, which is clearly not enough to prevent illegal file sharing from happening.

So with that in mind, if users and developers are hesitant to enact radical, sweeping changes to the protocol, or any changes that make it more costly to run a full node, it's precisely because they don't want to make it harder for people to resist if/when the state does attempt to use force against the network.  A network with fewer nodes will be inherently less resistant.

I've certainly never thought that Bitcoin needed government approval.  It's effectively self-legitimising.  So in that sense, it's resistant to not only state control, but also minority control.  It will always be what the majority of its users want it to be.   I wouldn't be harassing Franky1 if he dropped this ridiculous pretence of "developer control".  Being able to express preference simply through participation is immensely powerful.  That's where Bitcoin's resistance ultimately stems from.

GAVEL.  It's called a gavel.  





And every other participant in the network who agrees with the present course.  Seems like you always forget about them somehow.

Then stop complaining and either pay someone to code what you want or learn how to code it yourself if you don't like the protocol.  We're quite happy with it, thank you.  What we're not happy with is you derailing every single goddamn topic on the forum to wage your pathetic little hate campaign.  Shut up already.

Until you use that "other" name for BCH he doesn't like.  Seems to be one of his buttons.

---

I know, right?  His tinfoil hat must have some antennas built into it or something.  

My take on Antpool isn't that they're deliberately excluding SegWit transactions, but they do seem to place greater emphasis on claiming the block reward at the expense of filling blocks.  So on the occasions where they do include transactions in their blocks, they'll naturally take the ones with the highest fees.  And those with the highest fees tend to be the non-SegWit ones.

At the time of writing, the last two blocks mined by Antpool were 1,177.84 and 1,125.78 KB, so it's not like they're refusing to include them.

In other revelatory news, water is wet.  

I'd be surprised if they gave the thumbs up for an ETF before 2020 at this rate.  The establishment clearly aren't ready for us yet.  And I'm okay with that, because I'd rather see greater numbers of real people adopting Bitcoin before the floodgates open and the traditional finance parasites all invade at once.  That way, when ETFs are eventually approved, it'll be more difficult for the so-called "market makers" to manipulate volume and price.



There has been a noticeable decline in grammar with a few of their articles lately.  More proofreading required, perhaps.

Pretty sure you mean compared to what you desire, which isn't remotely like anything the community desires.  The community don't desire EC.  ~38 nodes want that.  A drop in the ocean.

The Ver/Wright drama might be totally inane and irrelevant, but don't whine about it just because we're not paying any attention to the social drama you're trying to create from nothing because you have a petty vendetta against certain devs.  Your drama is equally worthless.

There's nothing wrong with people testing out new ideas and seeing what works, per se.  But yeah, things do seem to have reached the stage where some of them are more of a novelty than any sort of real improvement over existing mechanisms.  It's nothing more than attention seeking gimmickry with some of these concepts.  Hype over substance.  

Take each one on a case-by-case basis, because they're not all terrible.  But just be mindful of anything that sounds like marketing fluff.

I've heard people say that social media rots your brain, but this is something else.  People don't want to believe what scientists and doctors say, but they'll take twitter at face value without stopping to even question it?  No wonder the world is in the state it currently is. 

It'll be harder to tell now that some exchanges might be using the Liquid sidechain.  Some of their transactions won't be appearing in any of the blocks you'll naturally be looking in.  And when the block explorer is available for Liquid, it uses 'Confidential Assets', meaning you won't be able to see the amounts being sent back and forth.

Some of the 'Merit Received' scores don't seem to add up.  It says I've received 175 merit, but I have 1180 in total.  I had the 1000 starting/airdropped merit, so I've received 180.  A discrepancy of -5.

The Pharmacist's entry says they've received 897, but have a total of 1866, so (again, assuming the 1000 starting merit) a discrepancy of +31.  That's probably one of the more extreme examples.  

LoyceV's adds up fine.

Is it something to do with deleted posts?  Or maybe when profiles are parsed?

Banks are the ones with the bad intentions.  They want to sit there getting rich off the fact that they can print money from nothing and then lend it at interest, all whilst speculating on derivatives.  Any decent cryptocurrency is neutral and impartial by design.  That's why banks don't like it, there's no profit in it for them.  They're a middleman in a world where we're cutting out the middleman.  They're the ones who need to adjust.  Not us.

It depends which blockchain you're referring to.  There's a small but crucial difference between anonymous and pseudonymous.  Bitcoin is not anonymous.  You need to make a conscious effort to maintain privacy if that's a concern for you.  Cash, on the other hand, is anonymous.  Bitcoin is far easier to trace than physical cash is.  If you're a criminal and you think Bitcoin is safer than cash to do something illegal, then you're clearly not a very good criminal.  

The only advantage Bitcoin has in criminal activity is its portability over large distances.  It's easier to move than cash is.  But it's also easier to get caught because you will leave a trail that the authorities can follow.

There are certainly some privacy-oriented blockchains that may prove safer for criminal activity, but that's a discussion for the Altcoins board.

I'm happy to keep it going with the analogy if that's what you really want.  

You're in a restaurant that serves dessert.  You are there by choice.  You're seated in the "no dessert" section.  Also by choice.  Even though it's more expensive without the dessert discount.  That means you are not getting a dessert.  Dessert is not being brought to your table.  You've never even seen a dessert.  You can still enjoy your main and pay exactly what you've always paid for it.  Stop whining at us because we like sitting in the dessert section and we're happy with the one main.  One lone voice can't change the restaurant chain's policy on main courses.  Each restaurant location sets its own menu, but most of them seem to have the same menu.  Most of the other customers seem very content with the current menu.  Sometimes you have to tip a bit more when it's busy, but most people don't have a problem with this because they love the service and the quality.  This restaurant always seems to know exactly what the majority of its customers want, almost as if it was run by them.  I honestly don't know why you keep coming here when all you do is complain about the menu.  Some people just like the attention, I guess.  You also strike me as the kind of person that doesn't tip very generously.  We like it here, though.

I even hear that a small number of locations for this chain of restaurants have a bespoke menu.  You run one of those restaurants, don't you?  You let customers decide how many main courses they want to have, but there's definitely no dessert menu.  It seems that idea hasn't proven very popular, though.  Most people are happy with either just the one main, or the one main and then a nice big dessert.  I'd have thought you'd be appreciative of the fact that you're totally free to run your own restaurant with no dessert on offer.  Literally no one can force you to offer dessert at your location.  I don't know why you think you get to tell the other locations what should be on their menu, though.  It's not your call.  You've made your choice for what goes on your menu, so you need to respect the choice of the other locations.  Maybe you should consider being less of a dick about this and just be thankful for what you've got.  No one else can reverse your order like they can in old-fashioned restaurants.  You don't have to give them your personal contact details to eat here like old-fashioned restaurants do.  They're open 24/7, when the old-fashioned restaurants are often closed.  You can even be refused service altogether at those old-fashioned places.  Everyone is welcome here.  You might not like the menu, but there are clearly enough good reasons for you to stick around because you haven't left yet.

Plus, there's always that other chain of restaurants with the controversial advertising and up-to-32-course meals and no dessert if you like your mains so much.  We think that's a tad gluttonous, though.  If everyone ate a large number of courses there, most of their locations would probably be forced to shut and you'd be left with only one central location where the service was absolutely terrible.  They could change the menu as much as they wanted and people wouldn't have much say in it.  Plus, even though you can have up to 32 courses there, most people who eat there don't even finish their starters.  People just seem to go there for a light snack.  It's all a bit strange, really.  But if you like that business model, the option is yours.

And there are countless other restaurant chains too, but the service and quality varies greatly.  Sometimes people get food poisoning at those other chains.  Standards are pretty lax.  

Many believe that's why this chain of restaurants we eat in is so popular.  The quality here is really high.  And there are so many locations.  Sometimes people forget how important those aspects are and that maybe it's not the best idea to jeapordise those qualities.

None.  They don't want to add anything, apparently.  It's intended to be a mirror, or backup, in case something goes wrong.  Think of it as a safety net if that helps.

It isn't "old technology".  The last code commit was ~6 minutes ago, so it's more up to date than most of the crapcoins that have already fallen by the wayside, despite making bold claims about how they were the "next big thing".  Bitcoin is under a constant state of development and improvement.  No coin has a comparable workforce behind it that could match Bitcoin's development pace.

Most PoW cryptocurrencies are exactly the same technology, but just sacrifice security and decentralisation for speed.  That's not a "feature", it's a compromise.  Other methods like PoS and DAG have slightly different compromises.  Try not to fall for the marketing hype when people talk about coins that are supposedly more advanced.  It's mostly cosmetic gimmickry designed to lure in some impressionable future bagholders.