Yea, the master troll in action again. So you saying the users/miners should be in control of the coding and developing? How fucked up would that be, if the users and miners were in control of programming the code. If I were getting paid to shill for Blockstream, I would probably not be able to afford a McDonald burger with my post history. ^LoL^
Whoever has the best code, will have the users/miners support, or that is the theory.... Lately the people with the most money to spam the network and to use backdoors <ASICBOOST> seem to control the consensus. ^grrrrrr^
the only implementation that has bypassed users support.. is blockstream(core)
asic boost has nothing to do with it. just like opencl had nothing to do with any decisions of core back in the day of the GPU mining.
imagine it. imagine core in 2012 wanted to change something but couldnt because it would cause issues with ATI's openCL. people would laugh at core if they started blaming ATI.
same goes for now.. if segwit hits a wall before being active, then REWRITE SEGWIT!!
its all just finger pointing drama, to get everyon looking in every direction apart from blockstream.
so just look at blockstream
EG blockstream made cludgy code instead of a clean node upgrade event.
EG blockstream made it so only pools get the vote('going soft').
EG blockstream going soft is an admitted backdoor exploit and they admit they want to add more backdoors to be able to go soft more often. (in th wrong hands its called a trojan)
EG blockstream now crying because all them all-inclusive exotic weekends didnt buy the pools into flag waving by last christmas (due to 65% abstaining/ objecting to the cludgy code)
EG blockstream now found out their 2merkle cludge is not as compatible as first thought (so now asking abstainers/objectors to reprogram themselves, to use filter/bridging nodes, to fork off, to add code to avoid attack vectors segwit causes, even offering to PoW bomb just to get the cludgy code in)
yep. instead of just backing down and going for a plan B of a 1 merkle segwit with proper block size increase for the entire network benefit, blockstream still want to bypass the idea of a network consensus upgrade and go straight to a controversial bilateral split..
much simpler blockstream just redo segwit as a proper 1 merkle version, remove the cludge and add the other features the community want too instead of pointing the fingers to blame pools, other implementations (which have done nothing for 2 years) and wasting upto 3 years just to push the cludgy version (UASF 'late2018' mandatory activation) and then make yet again half baked promises that they will remove the cludge and make it 1merkle full proper upgrade after that.. (no one believes them anymore)
a 1 merkle rewrite with the extra features the community want to unite the community. is safer AND FASTER to implement than the 2merkle cludge and all the threats half promises and features that wont 100% fix the network issues.. that blockstream are 'demanding get implemented or else'
