and if you do not care about mandatory threats and controlled upgrades that bypass consensus. then you have revealed much more about your lack of care for bitcoin and you more concern of promoting people should use other networks
So you continue to maintain this total fiction that "
developers control the network"? Even though the code they produce has no power unless people choose to run it? Cool, destroy those tattered remnants of your credibility that little bit further. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of consensus can recognise that you are talking nonsense. Users and miners made this happen. They made that choice. Developers just provided them with the tools to do so. So blame the users and miners (except you can't, because it doesn't fit your narrative). Consensus made it happen, so blame consensus rather than making ludicrous claims that it was "
bypassed". That's what happens if you run incompatible code and you don't have sufficient numbers behind you. It's designed to work that way.
If you were forked off the network as a result, that's on you.
If I didn't care about Bitcoin, I wouldn't keep challenging your manipulative FUD posts. You think you can tell developers, users and miners what they can or can't do in a permissionless system. As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think it's vital for everyone to be able to make their own decisions. You think developers should be forced to stop working on off-chain solutions and drag them kicking and screaming back to the base protocol when that's not what they want to work on. As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think developers are free to create anything their vision and talent can manifest, even if it's an alternative client that some would claim is an "attack", "hostile takeover", "coup", whatever (much like how you claim LN is an attack on Bitcoin). You think you can foist undesirable changes onto nodes that do not want them. As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think nodes are vital to the network's resilience and we should not make things prohibitively costly for them.
SegWit is opt-in. Bech32 is opt-in. Lightning is opt-in. However, imposing greater on-chain throughput onto nodes that do not want greater on-chain throughput is NOT opt-in. Why do you think you get to force your authoritarian views on others when there are already other chains that cater to your wishes? That's what you're doing when you insist that we "
open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity". There are blockchains where nodes freely choose to accept greater on-chain throughput, but that's not this chain. It would be advantageous for you to use a chain where people share your views. Stop pretending that you respect the decision this chain has made when all you want to do is overturn it.
Also, it takes two sides to have a disagreement. There would not have been a fork at all if everyone agreed. Some chose to run the code that adhered to consensus on the BTC chain, while others chose to run code that did not adhere to consensus on the BTC chain. Sounds like freedom to me. Why do you not apportion blame equally to both sides? Clearly we could not reach an agreement where everyone was satisfied. And it seems like you
still can't find one long after the rest of us have moved on from this matter. And be under no illusion that we have absolutely moved on. So it's far better if everyone moves forward in a direction they are happy with, even if that means parting ways. It gives people greater freedom and choice that way.
Consensus means you run the code you want to run and you will be automatically matched with other people running compatible code. You will then build a blockchain together and ideally reap the benefits of any network effects you jointly produce. That's how this works. You can either adhere to consensus or you fork away and form your own consensus with others. Whatever you believe the developers and the code did or didn't do, it doesn't really matter anymore. It's moot and it's done. The simple fact is that people chose to run that code and consequences happened which you seriously need to get the hell over.
tomorrow reign in your emotions to be concerned with the bitcoin network and how people on the bitcoin network are trying to enforce things
Said the fascist trying to enforce things.
Your ideas are not compatible with permissionless freedom. I say that without emotion. You are being emotional. Stop whining about things you can't change and move on.
Also, start a new thread for this if you feel the need to continue. This topic is supposed to be about breadwallet. If users don't like the change developers have made, usage of breadwallet will naturally decrease. It's entirely up to the users, as it should be. There is no "forced change", as you were alluding to when you first started derailing the thread:
forced change!! have you not learned anything.
Name the users that have had a gun put to their heads by the breadwallet devs to force them to run this new code. Name
one. Breadwallet may have applied pressure to some businesses to implement bech32 support, but no users are being forced to run code they don't want to run.
