and again.. emphasising this for the blind or ignorant that cant even read their own posts to realise what they are saying is hypocritical to their own cause and idolations

thousands of people have released their own clones and no one adopts them because "they are not core, they are not reviewed by core maintainers, its not signed by core maintainers" thus people treat it with mistrust and just REKT them
bitcoin history has proven this, where the many civil wars has resulted in anything not core being told to create their own altcoin if it wants to offer options that differ cores roadmap for the protocol. they are only happy with other brands if the other brands sheep follow cores path, cores decisions.

thus core are a central point of failure. so stop pretending devs are not forced.. because they are they are forced to obide by cores moderation or get rejected as opposition.. heck even your emotions are admitting to it even when you pretend there is no control but show there is control in the same breath

you pretend that bitcoin is open to anyone to try. yet your emotions shout "dont trust" "RED FLAG" before any non core devs have even tried.

also your use of the doctor/electrician/plumber analogies do not apply. because with doctors there are different brand hospitals and people can get second opinions. yet you idolise that hospitals should all follow the policy of one medical institutions and think of anyone not part of that institution be considered quacks(amateur experienced doctors)
heck your doing it now. before any other brand node is released "by franky" you already trying to incite people to not trust it. thus REKTing it when there isnt even a chance for people to view it.. thats how much you are sucking up and idolising the authoritarianism of core maintainers

the issue is.. and take some time to put your core admiration hat to the side and really think
when core are the only doctors in town. the only people that do surgery. and they botch the healthcare they are responsible for. but dont take no responsibility to fix it. and their fans shout "dont tell the doctor to fix it. if you dont like it "fork off to another town"
you are not thinking that the doctors need to be de-licenced/stricken off. you instead want to defend the doctor to allow them to keep cutting into people and make them less able to function in daily life in the town. just to keep promoting that the only option is to move to a different state .. you dont want better doctors that take responsibility for their actions. nor do you want anyone scrutinising your doctor. you love that they are botching operations and causing people to leave town becasue you profit from those in other towns

stable coins are not a great store of value.. FIAT is a bad store of value. inflation has taught people this. wise up
we should not be promoting bitcoin to turn into an asset class to facilitate crappy inflation currencies. especially if those crappy inflation currencies then require regulation auditors and other dumb stuff that failed said fiat world in the first place

and now doomad admits its dangerous.. he needs to see the source of this idea. yep the main core maintainers sponsored by corporate world want to add assets to bitcoin. so its these core devs we need to get to not do this to bitcoin protocol.

yep the main core devs funded by blockstream, chaincode labs and brink(who are promoting that people should use crappy subnetworks like liquid and LN). which are funded by the institutional corporations of the fiat world. already have (broken) mechanisms for multi-asset control on their subnetworks (liquid/LN) but now they want to break bitcoin to make bitcoin more crappy subnetwork compatible. rather then make their subnetworks actually work by themselves
.. where its their subnetworks that should be changing (a)work without flaws/bugs. and (b) changed on the subnetworks for the subnetworks to be bitcoin compatible.

we should not break bitcoin to be crappy network compatible, nor have bitcoin bloated by crappy things that make bitcoin annoying to  use just to promote crappy subnetworks/other assets that people should use instead.

again you are saying about make a clone node + separate website for distribution. ..
here is the thing you are not realising. understanding, not admitting. not saying:
 when people see that its not signed off using the public keys of core devs,, people wont download the clone nor think that it is bitcoin core. they will think its an attempted attack from some virus maker/hacker becasue it doesnt have the signed hashes of core devs

and thats the centralised game core want.. to have people only trust the reference client wrote by them signed by them and released by them.

u idolise the fact that core control the protocol and anyone other then core changing the protocol are deemed opposition so again its the core devs that are highlighted.

stop pretending that core devs done nothing and do nothing and are responsible for nothing..  but then cry that you dont want other people changing things.. but then crying/celebrating that if other people did do something core would reject it because core have the power to treat opposing nodes as opposition

your nonsense circle of denying how things work but then 21 sentences later in another post admit how things work. is just you trying to cause a controversy debate for your entertainment of trying to cause an argument over some social drama just to be conflicting and annoy people . whilst doing all you can to shift blame away from core devs for their actions

get your story straight.
realise core did make changes in their lengthy multiyear campaign of "the big consensus cleanup". they admit they did things. and they admit they do not like proposals or changes to the protocol not suggested or ratified by the core maintainers. so again understand while you want to pretend it would be some random devs its actually core that are responsible and yes they can code rules to make data explicitly fit a certain format. where every byte is properly accounted for.. yes they can do that. they can strengthen consensus again(undo their consensus softening crap) and yes they caused the consensus softening crap. so stop pretending its random devs or needs random devs to undo it. while then crying/celebrating that random devs will get opposed if they tried.

so get to the facts. CORE control the protocol rule decisions of what gets ruled, formatted or what gets softened and unformatted.. so core should take responsibility for THEIR actions of the recent ability to put in upto 4mb of bloat appended to the ends of a tx(outside the signed message of tx data).

so yes they can actually strengthen consensus again they just choose not to because they have been sponsored to let crap in
you want them to do things that have been asked by them by the corporate sponsors whilst saying no one should tell core devs what to do(from the non corporate community of actual bitcoiners) but core CAN make changes. its not impossible. its just requires core to take responsibility and actually open up to wanting to change their morals

$6 in 2012

devs can
bitcoin is not some self generating AI that codes its own rules. devs code the rules.. so they can infact code rules that after a opcode is noted the data after the opcode should meet certain criteria. thus transactions being relayed outside the consensus format dont get relays or accepted into blocks

stop pretending that devs do nothing and have no responsibility.. grow up and realise that code is wrote by devs so its the devs that can do things

if you want to cry "censorship"
well how come you love "reject tx if fee below X".. but you cant see the same theory applies in "reject tx if witness over X"

stable coin on taproot is still as crap as stable coin in general. it still relies on real humans managing bank accounts thus the "federation" taproot that generates the emulated value to then pass off to willing victims(participants) and requires proving to some auditor/regulator that the bank account balance matches any value stored in token form

what makes it worse is if they then try to for instance peg that Xsats = y$$... that peg is not something locked into bitcoin blockchain economic policy of cryptographic proof its just emulated in the GUI (user display) as a math of multiplication of units or division of units at user interface conversion
also when dollar to sat of the native bitcoin market change, the pegs would go haywire too

thus makes it worse idea

too many people want to abuse the bitcoin network for two reasons

to ride the "bitcoin" buzzword bandwagon of fame..
to ruin bitcoin hoping people stick with the junk that that ruined it. by pretending their junk is a better usecase for bitcoiners than bitcoin


smart contracts are not the same as NFT

you actually can create references(like a sha hash) of something and actually transfer it within a bitcoin transaction.. but the idiots of ordinals are not doing it the basic way that is within the "proof of transfer" signed message policy

so although it is possible even now to make referenced hashes be passed between outputs. thus allowing for "tokenisation" its not something that should be promoted. what should be promoted is lean efficient usage of every byte per tx to allow maximal usage of the masses of bitcoiners. rather then displace bitcoin usage to make room for junk and other non bitcoin currency stuff

becasue its this other "stuff" that will get regulators tongues tingling to wanna get a taste of regulating bitcoin due to this other junk stuff

firstly ordinals is not even a real token or NFT. its a pretend "theory" of junk data that pretends to have a proof of transfer even though the deadweight data sits outside of what gets signed into a tx. yep data sits outside of a signed TX thus is not assigned to any output nor inside the signed data content.. thus its not owned by what the theory suggests..
(yep you can prune the deadweight data of ordinals and not break the transaction. so its not actually part of a transaction.. its just appended deadweight after the transaction)

secondly if bitcoin ever did become a network hosting multi currency it breaks the economic policy of bitcoin that meant to only offer upto 2099999999967690000 sharable units of a currency called sats..
(yep the hard rule always was starting from genesis 50000000000sats every block for 210k blocks then halves amount per 210k blocks. totally the amount of units mentioned.. )

thirdly regulators would then want more controls.. due to regulations about ICO scammers and also regulations of stable coins.

it is funny that some people suggest that bitcoin is not fit for bitcoin transactions('no weeks wage amounts for 3rd world countries allowed', 'no coffee/pizza amounts for 1st world countries allowed', and such) and thus they advertise other networks pretending to be next gen bitcoin network.. which they want people to be pushed over to/offramped/offboarded too.. but the same groups then advertise that bitcoin should then fill up with junk data(ordinals) or ICO scams or regulated currencies(stablecoins) that will hurt bitcoin.

read your own paragraph i just quoted to yourself atleast 5 times to yourself and realise the irony of what you said.. you said anyone can offer changes to bitcoin core.. thus you admit the control power house of core is where people need to offer and make changes to..
secondly you also admit that those devs needed to make their own projects as another network because they were deemed as "tampering with bitcoin" and being "radicals" for suggesting changes that dont fit cores corporate roadmap..

seems you do know a bit of history but your not quite understanding what you know because you now seem to just want to promote the authoritarianism of core as free choice even when you admit the push off the network examples due to it tampering with or being radical against cores plans

nutildah.. you pretend to say you are correcting me but you did not even review your own reply when you gave an example of a supposed taintpath of a meme.. . because the links to that example of the taint path of ordinals you shown. did not actually follow the direction you promoted..    ..should you dare go and check your post history

yep you thought the meme was handed off to some "3" prefix multisig address when infact it went to .. if you were to read the theory correctly went to another address with 1GQ beginning and taint hoped that address for hundreds of spends

if you want to follow a theory that suggests counting sats.. then COUNT THEM
use blockchain data itself to count them using actual math, not the project managers explorer display that is known to miscount or mis assign them

but even outside the theory and the broke explorer count. the memes and json data sits in witness not beside any particular output so again the output assignment has no strict rule. and is all based on broken theory of a user display rather than cryptographic proof of transfer

nothing that is signed for in a tx actually stipulates that meme belongs to a particular output becasue the meme sits outside of the signed tx data

but hey. when you trust a project managers gimmicky promise of a theory. rather then checking if that theory is correct by looking at the actual blockdata flow. you learn the hard way that you are the one in the wrong.
the lesson to learn there is dont blindly trust project managers explainers.. nor their greedy scammy fans. instead read the block data.. trust math. not a scammers say so

now go back to the example you gave. and this time use math and economics to actually see where the sats go to logically.. using the blockdata.. not the ordinals display of chosen path.. because the ordinals display miscounts. and it has been proven by many

.. as for larry:
even without publicly releasing code. people are getting REKT for even suggesting a fix.
the reason the other brands that class themselves as fullnodes dont propose upgrades is the wrath of the core REKTing crew jumping on them and treating them as opposition that should just "f**k off and create an altcoin and see who follows" is a REKTing campaign that has a long history. so they dont bother because the economic nodes and majority of mining hash is in the same corporate ownership of who is sponsoring the core devs.. (the NYA agreement group)
thus they will always follow the core roadmap becasue its THEIR roadmap and they dont want anyone diverting bitcoin away from their plan

GET IT YET

a prime example is how Luke JR although he was considered a highly involved maintainer/(now occassional )contributor and previously a Bip moderator. he has since been regulated out of the power house of core maintainers.

he could not even get his discourage ordinals fix into a core bip listing let alone a commit inside core.
and thats one of the main devs people used to consider a main guy of core before the hierarchy went too god-mode

same is said about previous lead maintainers 7+ years ago, they got regulated out and treated as an outside to be ignored too

this is why many many dev teams no longer make full nodes for bitcoin and instead just created things like ethereum and other alts over the years becasue when core started up they got told their ideas dont suit the core plan

there is a long history you are ignoring about REKT campaigns that have lead to core entering a god mode control of bitcoin.
and its that control that needs to disipate by making people aware of it so they can request core break down their hierarchy and be more open gated community not just open source

again learn the difference between a highly moderated dev group (closed gated) vs clear to view but not to edit(open source) of the protocol

even you dont know how lightning works. you cant even tell the difference of what data is inside an onion payment. you dont realise that msats are not understood by the bitcoin network nor do you know how the value shifts from payer to payee. it involves borrowing middle mens channel balance to play pass the parcel for a fee.

heck you dont even realise how easy it is for lightning factories and wallet owners can create lightning channels with partners that dont require confirmed locked value on the bitcoin network to peg to(or not be pegged to to be more specific)

but soon when more regulations come about causing routers to require registering as money service businesses(payment facilitators) you might learn the hard way of how lightning is different to running a bitcoin node and making a bitcoin transaction

it might be best you actually learn stuff away from the spoon feeds of your master

also when bitcoin network tx is an average of 3btc you may also learn that bitcoiners wont get much "payment success" events on lightning due to the liquidity issues of the pass the parcel borrowing game of lightning..

but hey until then i will just see you only want to recite your masters hymn sheet of mythical songs which you religiously believe are historic facts.

actually i was never an angel trying to convert people to a religion.. you and your master (after the saga) tried to pigeon hole me into that group because i simply had an opinion that core were doing things in a controlling way(madated block rejections to get a faked 100% consensus vote) and treating other brands as opposition so you THOUGHT i must be on that other brands team

your failure to understand that more tx capacity is different to "bigger blocks " is your ignorance of the whole saga becasue instead of reading the details you followed your masters scripts of the buzzword "bigger blocks" which was a misinformation of what was actually requested by many

yep you and he thought it meant 100gb blocks by X time and other nonsense extremities that your master was promoting as the other option(s). so it was your mistake of not carefully researching the definitions of scaling options outside of your echo chamber your master created around you.

your problem as is blackhat, nutildah and the other clan of echo's is that you reply with and rely on spoonfeeds from idiot project managers comments, rather than doing independent research involving reading blockdata, code, and looking at who exactly wrote the code.. instead you try to point fingers away from the flaws of project managers and blindly idolise them like a religious cult.

your lesson you wil learn the hard way is when you were promised riches if you can recruit people to LN you will get to syphon many fee's fro your recruits. you will learn you need to become a MSB
blackhat will learn the hard way about the mixer regulations.. he is still playing ignorant that there are any.. he will learn the hard way there are
doomad will just scam people until caught
and nutildah will just keep scamming people with memes(he pretend to not be doing that but seems too financially vested in keeping the scam alive to not be financially invested in their continuance)

firstly YOU said the word pretend.. so dont step back now and act as if you didnt. dont spin it on me. ook at your own post history.

secondly choice?
core being the sole arbiter of code upgrade is not a choice.. you mean control, not choice.. cores lemmings REKTing anyone who dares offer something different.. REKting them as by treating them only as an opposition who should be made to f**k off to create an alcoin is not a bitcoin choice. thats a competing currency choice. leaving bitcoin in control of core..  is not a diverse decentralised choice for bitcoin thats the removal of choice for bitcoiners.
the only option is not "fork off"

heck some have not even released code and you are already trying to convince people not to trust or use it if they were to release it,. yep you and doomad and his clan are doing the same crap..

yes your scripts are not original doomad and his clan played this same game years ago.

but hey you keep forgetting im not the authoritarian.. you want to call me one to shift blame.. but i am not because i am not controlling the rules. core does. so get a dictionary and learn the words you use stop just using idiots as your source. there is a difference between doomads scripts and whats really happening. go learn. try to learn for your self not to suck up to someone else

see who wrote the code that created the exploits and the 5 maintainers that allowed it. then see if those same 5 maintainers are apologising or coming up with a fix. then you will see where the problem actually lays

if you want to play the scripts of 'dont scrutinise core', 'dont critique core', 'dont ask core to take responsibility' then you are the fool that want core to continue to be the authoritarian.. the "gods" no one should oppose.

core should be the ones everyone should be reviewing scrutinising holding to account and responsibility and the ones people should be asking to fix things.. especially when the caused it

LEARN the true meaning of authoritarianism because you have been suckered into letting core become one

no one is talking about recessions and covid

what they are saying is when US wants to TAX BITCOIN MINING that is a direct hit on bitcoiners.
however they also want to give tax relief to miners that are green/sustainable.. thus a form of control
such as international(non US miners) wont get the tax relief because auditing them would cost more compared to domestic miners.
thus it incentivizes miners to put asics inside the US, in "green states" to centralise mining more.. for tax purposes(cheap audit and reliefs)

if you are of the type of person that thinks crypto analysis is just watching the market candle sticks for trends then your knowledge base is small.
if you think traders just do the same then your circle of people you know is small.

actual traders dont just do trend analysis(not to be confused with technical analysis)
actual traders look outside of the silly trends and find proper fundamental impacts

i did do a bit of forex trading many years ago. but that game was boring and yes i made more on bitcoin than on forex.

the main problems/differences in forex are these:
when 2 countries currencies are traded. people dont do trend analysis, instead they look for things like:
has a country changed its import/export tariffs to affect international trade
has the country doing food exports had a good growth season. where their produce has yielded and so are able to sell more thus causing an effect of forex money shuffling when they export.
however when those reports come out. the big entities have already seen the reports and set their trades accordingly so by the time regular(non institutional) forex investors see the results, the market is already priced in. the hype is over before regular people get a chance to react

however on bitcoin there are some fundamentals that play out after results are published
for instance mining. when there is a hashrate rise. that means more competition for the miners. meaning less coin for them meaning when they sell(later) they will want more fiat for their less coins to break even, thus this is why there is a bitcoin market hype a year after a halving.

when 2022 seen electric prices increase due to international crap happening. the price in 2022 didnt go up immediately.
this is becasue miners buy equipment and pay for electric on upto a 1-2 year contract meaning their costs are priced in at the start and its only when their contracts are up do they evaluate their earnings against their costs to price in the bitcoin they need to sell at. hence the delay

so forex is where when regular people get the news.. the hype is already over.. in bitcoin when people see hashrate rises and halving. they get to see upfront before the hype results

---

also another difference is institutional forex investors do not hoard and hype. they day trade on 0.00x% fee's, sniping even the smallest under1% changes to the price becasue the trade fees are so low they can do this. whereby adding up all the small percentages per hours/day results in many percent per year.

bitcoin investors see that CEX trade fee's as being higher so they cant snipe under1% opportunities because the maker taker fees add up to nearly 1% or more then 1% at times. so they only act when there are more then a few % changes involved. most of which makes people not want to wait around for hours. and instead they hoard and sell on the hype

you need to learn the difference between contributors vs the maintainers that decide what gets contributed.
because alot of those 910 contributors over the 14 years that were just grammar checkers

also alot of them contributors are not even contributing anymore
take that final image.. it shows gavin andressen in the top 11 listing of most code contributed.. but he has not contributed for half a decade+
and majority of others top contributors (actually working now) are the SAME main 5 that are all sponsored by the same source of money that are now the maintainers.
EG they are not the independent reviewers that let good code in and reject bad code.. they are the 5 that "force merge" their own code in without other parties acknowledgement

but yea you "trust" them. more then independently reading the code for yourself and calling them out when they created the exploits. because i sure as hell didnt cause the exploit yet you lemmings wan to pretend im the enemy that is breaking bitcoin.. funny that
you dont want them taking responsibility for their actions. you just want to give them a blind pass due to fame and control presence

you cry that i dont publicly release code.. but then want to pretend that im the authoritarian that wants to break bitcoin.
how can i be the one that breaks bitcoin if i havnt released any code..(learn logic))

 yet those that have released bitcoin code and do have the authoritarian hierarchy and created exploits, you dont want people saying a bad word about them and dont want them to fix their errors.. yes they made errors but you blindly trust them.. it does make me laugh

especially how you know they created an exploit but dont want them to fix it and even when exploits do exist you think they are gods that never done anything bad.. emphasis is even when they did create bugs/exploits


i keep laughing that your screams along with your forum buddy shout and scream that "franky done" even though you will not see mode code on core so.. its funny how you want to point fingers at me even though i did not create the exploits..
in short its you obsessing about a person thats not even controlling bitcoin..
yet when i mention people that are controlling bitcoin code you want that all hushed up


you bungled your own example of ordinals proof.. but hey you care more about "trusting project manager" more so then reading blockdata/code.
you care more about the humans than what happens in code.

bitcoin is code. learn to review, research, scrutinise the code. and then look at the entities that wrote the code that created the exploits. then dont trust them
sorry but we as bitcoiners need to scrutinise those who are actually in control. not give them a loving pass to do as they like.. they need to take responsibilities for their acts that cause headaches for others

oh and even when Wladimir Van der Laan (ex LEAD maintainer) left. he admitted core has got too centralised. as did the previous LEAD maintainer and the first one.. they all said that development should not be centralised..
but hey as soon as they leave the god-mode team you want to dismiss their comments because to you and your buddies they are no longer the god-mode team so should be ignored

all you are is a suck-up that trust humans rather review code, rather than scrutinise code, rather then want good working code.

at this present moment the BS cartel (DCG(barrysilbert/blockstream) do control many aspects of bitcoin.
everything from:
exchanges(coinbase and grayscale) who custodianise the most coin
code(blockstream and subsiduaries like chaincodelabs and brink) who control the code upgrades
miners(foundry) who have the most hashpower
tx blacklisting(chainanalysis) who watchlist dirty coins and report that to exchanges and regulators to watch

that group have changed bitcoin to be expensive to use and exploited to bloat bitcoin to make normal people not enjoy using bitcoin as much as previous years, whilst the group advertises another network as the fix for their experimental  exploits on bitcoin, to get people to abandon bitcoin and move over to other networks.. other networks that charge man-in-the-middle fees for processing payments... they dont want to apply fixes to bitcoins active ruleset because that goes against their business plan of other network adoption.

so come to that realisation that bitcoin is vastly more controlled by a US cartel.

those lobbyists of that group are actually paying government to make regulations. not prevent regulations

and yes the cartel was also part of helping create barriers of entry such as the NYLicence meaning small businesses were priced out of being able to afford a licence to operate in NY

right now at a regulatory point. bitcoin is as open as it can be to bitcoiners. however a new president is not going to remove other regulations to make bitcoin "us friendly". he instead will apply more. pretending to be friendly whilst actually causing barriers of entry
EG to serve americans, an international company will need a US licence which comes at more expense than a us-domestic business would need to pay. due to international costs of getting auditors to travel to distant destinations to audit non-us companies using bitcoin
(look how the US is treating binance soo much differently than coinbase)


making bitcoin US friendly. is not about zero regulation, zero control, zero fee licences. zero tax
its about more regulation, more international tarrifs. where by being "US-friendly" is  that domestic US businesses will get tax reliefs, licence discounts and such, whilst international companies not wanting to have a US HQ base. will be charged higher costs for serving americans. because thats how americans act towards international projects/communities in regards to the phrase "US friendly"
after all its not worded "US will be internationally bitcoin friendly"

larry .. ur missing the point

others already have released code. but people dont adopt it because "its not core"*
others have tried to propose such code TO core and got it rejected

others with names that are clearly known in the github community

take luke JR for instance

*when it comes to other repos people want certain dev group to have reviewed the code for them and sign off the code is clean, which ends up as a human trusting human issue because people dont want to review thousands of lines of code themselves

core gained defacto god trust so people stopped caring about independent review or risking other brands not maintained by core god-mode

even the core-gods have cried that other brands are bad because they(core-gods) dont have time to review other people brands to sign them off as clean

their fanbase REKT other brands even ones made by known github personalities..

even though luke Jr is a occasional contributor and previous core maintainer, people now treat even him as an outsider
 heck in the past there were nodes wrote by an ex lead maintainer that wanted to upgrade the network without causing a fork(altcoin) and he got REKT into being told to make an altcoin and leave core to control bitcoin rules

heck we already had doomad call me an authoritarian and an opposition and i have not even publicly released code to the masses

thats how bad the centralisation/control has got.
the solution is not to have outsides trying to get loyalty

its to get the masses to get core to be more open

and one final point. this is a discussion forum. you wanting me to just shut up and fork off is not even an original thought made by you.. heck you are doing the same games.. "make a website and pretend its bitcoin"
subtly doing the hints that anything not core is not bitcoin but a "pretend"

so the code solutions are out there already.. but it requires the masses to not treat core as god for other brands/patches to even get adopted.. or for core themselves to open up and come down a peg or two to be willing to accept adjustments not made by the top 5 maintainers.

lazy.. hah.. i bet i travelled more in the last 3 days then you have in your lifetime
i have learned more about bitcoin then you ever have. i have done more bitcoin stuff then you and earned more bitcoin then you. heck i have even wrote more bitcoin code then you.
the thing is just because i keep my personal life separate from this forum does not mean im lazy. it means im smarter then you angelo

funny part is you have yet to learn the basics.. you pretend to call yourself a bitcoin tech support on social media but even this year you are still asking the most basic things about bitcoin and getting the same wrong answers from your social club

you should stop less time with the lies and ignorance and spend more time learning. i dont care about if you learn from me or not. just learn from actual hard blockdata, code and who is changing the code and removing certain checks and limits that did exist

your forum wife keeps wanting to tell you bitcoin always had problems blockchains dont work stop storing blockdata dont use bitcoin blah blah blah but he is not a bitcoiner he hates bitcoin he loves other networks and is trying to recruit others to his other network whilst sucking up to the devs that want to scramble bitcoin into an unfit network

you keep saying bitcoin will be for only micro payments. and the in same breath say bitcoin is unfit for micropayments and bitcoin should not be used for payments upto pizza amounts.. well you are just repeating a script. its not even your own thoughts independently thought up by you. you are not original nor even thinking beyond the script. you just recite it without a care in the world. and yes larry is joining that same echo so goodluck to him too..

however there are many many topics of thousands of people wanting to talk about bitcoin and fixing and scaling BITCOIN so if you only want to say "dont fix bitcoin and f**k off to another network" well you take the first move and just go play with your prefered network

however many other people want to discuss bitcoin issues and methods to sort things out and the impedances that make it not so easy to do. and how to solve those impedances along the way.

i know you want to pretend alot of things and ignore block data and code. but with all your diatribe of promotions to recruit people into your little clubhouse of echos, you do not actually ever bother to look at the technical aspects.. you just rely on being spoonfed by your forum wife to tell you what to say

try for once to learn bitcoin outside your echo chamber and then come up with an original thought that sounds nothing like something doomad would say.. for your own good

when i say to people DYOR meaning do your own research
you cry about me asking people to do their research, but then jump back to wanting to be spoonfed the answers without any effort on your own part to learn the stuff.. you forget the emphasis is and has been do YOUR OWN research.