Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong?

[Wind_FURY]

but i say this because nothing stops pools from doing this. by this you will also find that no pool is going to be forced, made to, or coerced into  including a LN close channel session onchain.

Would you believe that that would be the main reason why Antpool and Bitcoin.com are excluding Segwit transactions?

What about doing it as a means to collect higher fee rewards per block?

[franky1]

but i say this because nothing stops pools from doing this. by this you will also find that no pool is going to be forced, made to, or coerced into  including a LN close channel session onchain.

Would you believe that that would be the main reason why Antpool and Bitcoin.com are excluding Segwit transactions?

What about doing it as a means to collect higher fee rewards per block?

each pools has their own intentions. EG btcc used to let in tx with zero fee but only when the tx originating from their exchange
another pool guaranteed first-in (priority) if they done a API pushtx through a website portal*
another pool guaranteed first-in (priority) if they done a API pushtx through a website portal* when paying the pool indirectly
*then treating the normal network relay/mempool as second class
another pool wouldnt include transactions where the utxo is under 6 confirms(honestly, most pools should do this, as it would help avoid spam and also reduce orphan risk)

but back to the question you asked
well if you had 2 tx's both say 300bytes but one earning you 25cents and the other treated as $1 which one would you grab

if core removed the wishy washy witness scale factor *4, guess what
1. both legacy and segwit transactions can in full non stripped format all happily utilise the 4mb 'weight'
2. both legacy and segwit transactions would both be 25 cents. yep cores code makes legacy 4x more expensive. not discount segwit by 75%(thus code counters their PR adverts)

core can easily also limit the sigops/tx. that way it allows more tx per block during spam attacks. .. did you know the way core put in sigop limits that one person can make just 5 transactions and use up the block sigop limit because the tx sigop limit is so high (facepalm)
..
also by reducing the tx sigop limit, thus allowing more tx per block sigop limit also as a side effect reduces the chance of the whole linear validation delay issue.. but if core were to actually do some efficiency stuff and actually fix things, they would have no PR to say other non-blockchain networks are needed.

did you know that core could code many things. including a fee priority formula that charged people that re-spend funds more than once a day with a higher fee, thus a tx that has more aged utxos getting a lower fee.

imagine it a utxo spamming(re-spending) every block paying 144x more than someone spending once a day. which can be done with just a few lines of code.

yep. bitcoin is code and MANY things can be done. but core pretend only 2 things can be done... hense their false narative of
"gigabytes by midnight or LN"

[DooMAD]

Would you believe that that would be the main reason why Antpool and Bitcoin.com are excluding Segwit transactions?

We can't say with 100% certainty that they are excluding SegWit transactions just by looking at the size of blocks.  We can definitely conclude that blocks larger than 1mb in size have to have some SegWit usage included, but it's entirely feasible to have a block smaller than 1mb that still includes some SegWit transactions.  Perhaps it's just a coincidence?  I saw two antpool blocks yesterday over 1mb.

[Wind_FURY]

but i say this because nothing stops pools from doing this. by this you will also find that no pool is going to be forced, made to, or coerced into  including a LN close channel session onchain.

Would you believe that that would be the main reason why Antpool and Bitcoin.com are excluding Segwit transactions?

What about doing it as a means to collect higher fee rewards per block?

each pools has their own intentions. EG btcc used to let in tx with zero fee but only when the tx originating from their exchange
another pool guaranteed first-in (priority) if they done a API pushtx through a website portal*
another pool guaranteed first-in (priority) if they done a API pushtx through a website portal* when paying the pool indirectly
*then treating the normal network relay/mempool as second class
another pool wouldnt include transactions where the utxo is under 6 confirms(honestly, most pools should do this, as it would help avoid spam and also reduce orphan risk)

But is Antpool and BTC.com's decision to exclude Segwit transactions more of an "idealistic" move? Because I believe it will make them less profit over the long term.

but back to the question you asked
well if you had 2 tx's both say 300bytes but one earning you 25cents and the other treated as $1 which one would you grab

There were also computations that showed Antpool and BTC.com were earning less because of the exclusion. Maybe they have something else planned.

if core removed the wishy washy witness scale factor *4, guess what
1. both legacy and segwit transactions can in full non stripped format all happily utilise the 4mb 'weight'
2. both legacy and segwit transactions would both be 25 cents. yep cores code makes legacy 4x more expensive. not discount segwit by 75%(thus code counters their PR adverts)

Wishy washy? Wasn't stripping the witness data from the middle to the end of a block allowed more transactions to fit in a block, and wasn't it to fix the malleability issues?

Gaslighting again?

core can easily also limit the sigops/tx. that way it allows more tx per block during spam attacks. .. did you know the way core put in sigop limits that one person can make just 5 transactions and use up the block sigop limit because the tx sigop limit is so high (facepalm)
..
also by reducing the tx sigop limit, thus allowing more tx per block sigop limit also as a side effect reduces the chance of the whole linear validation delay issue.. but if core were to actually do some efficiency stuff and actually fix things, they would have no PR to say other non-blockchain networks are needed.

Ok, I will read about this and open another topic for more discussion.

did you know that core could code many things. including a fee priority formula that charged people that re-spend funds more than once a day with a higher fee, thus a tx that has more aged utxos getting a lower fee.

Are you talking about a fee market? That makes it reasonable considering the limited size of each block.

But the "more aged UTXOs getting a lower fee" as a result does not sense. Can you explain why?

yep. bitcoin is code and MANY things can be done. but core pretend only 2 things can be done... hense their false narative of
"gigabytes by midnight or LN"

What would be your ideal Bitcoin? Is it still Bitcoin Cash? You were debating for Roger Ver's narrative not too long ago.

[franky1]

Would you believe that that would be the main reason why Antpool and Bitcoin.com are excluding Segwit transactions?

We can't say with 100% certainty that they are excluding SegWit transactions just by looking at the size of blocks.  We can definitely conclude that blocks larger than 1mb in size have to have some SegWit usage included, but it's entirely feasible to have a block smaller than 1mb that still includes some SegWit transactions.  Perhaps it's just a coincidence?  I saw two antpool blocks yesterday over 1mb.

you can spot when a block contains absolutely no segwit UTXO's because the "stripped" size(b) and the size(b) are virtually equal give or take a few bytes difference for the block format/header stuff

that said. the blocks that are tagged as "antpool" but do include segwit show that not everything is run by one man (countering the "china own 51%" racism

you will also notice that some "antpool" blocks coin reward are different. theres half a dozen different coin reward addresses. each different address represents a different facility in a different location.

you will also notice that one of them "antpool" coin reward addresses is actually a bech32 address. which also counters the propaganda. as it shows that antpool isnt a single mindset of Wu but different facilities differnt countries and different managers with different judgements

(sorry to the core cabin of PR team, for busting the myth of Wu)
so i hope all you lot in this topic that just follow a certain narative have all got the message about that myth. as thats been circling for years as a drama finger pointing exercise by mainly your buddies for years

for instance.. even just above combining antpool & btc.com into some single mindset....(facepalm)
but i do laugh when a certain group treat over a billion people (china) as a single mindset.. now that is funny

[cellard]

Most likely Jihan Wu's degree on psychology at play here, by spreading his hashrate around and mining segwit blocks in some instances and don't in others, to trick people like franky1 into thinking his business is decentralized and he isn't calling all the shots. Naive in my opinion, that guys strikes as a classic control freak.

Too bad his shenanigans have ended up in a tricky situation as he finds himself holding massive amounts of bcash. Let's see how he gets out of this one.

[franky1]

if core removed the wishy washy witness scale factor *4, guess what
1. both legacy and segwit transactions can in full non stripped format all happily utilise the 4mb 'weight'
2. both legacy and segwit transactions would both be 25 cents. yep cores code makes legacy 4x more expensive. not discount segwit by 75%(thus code counters their PR adverts)

Wishy washy? Wasn't stripping the witness data from the middle to the end of a block allowed more transactions to fit in a block, and wasn't it to fix the malleability issues?

Gaslighting again?

"gaslighting" new buzzword this month?..
whats next? "conservative".. "ad-hom".. yea certain buzzwords start circulating in a certain group of people, which just shows they only fed off each other in an echo chamber

keeping the 4mb and removing the witness scale factor would actually allow MORE transactions per block
as for malleability. pfft
its more for a new TX format that is compatible for LN
funny part a 2-in-2out tx of legacy vs a 2-in-2out tx of segwit.. legacy uses less actual bytes on a hard drive.
(but shhh dont tell them that. they still think stripping blocks and not validating signatures and not relaying every tx is ok)
another funny part. new/re-activated opcodes can re-introduce malleability. but thats for another topic

did you know that core could code many things. including a fee priority formula that charged people that re-spend funds more than once a day with a higher fee, thus a tx that has more aged utxos getting a lower fee.

Are you talking about a fee market? That makes it reasonable considering the limited size of each block.

But the "more aged UTXOs getting a lower fee" as a result does not sense. Can you explain why?

years ago there was a fee priority formulae..
refer to that and you will learn about "coin-age"

now imagine instead of just fee= byte*feeperbyte
but instead something like
fee= (byte*feeperbyte) * (144/coin-age)

so if a coins age is 1 confirm. 144/1=144, meaning the person pays 144x more
so if a coins age is 72 confirm. 144/72=2, meaning the person pays 2x more

image a current fee of 1satper byte. and a tx of (not exact) 250 bytes

confirms   1        6           72        144
price      36000   6000      500      250

now would you spam the network every block if it cost you 36000sat a time. or just use the network wisely for a couple purchases a day far cheaper

if you do the math you will find is a tx had just 1 confirm, but was ignored in the next 6 blocks.. the fee is already set-in as 36000. so when at the 6th block. it would then appear as a premium compared to fresh tx's wrote with a fee of 6 confirms(6000sat).
that way pools can also tell not just by time stamps. but by fee which deserve priority and would be more considered as its more profitable to accept them.

after all right now if everyone just paid 250sat.. because everything is just sat per byte.. there is no "priority". so a tx could sit in mempool for hours and have no better placement than someone who just made a fresh tx a minute ago.. as the amounts thy both pay right now are the same.

yep. bitcoin is code and MANY things can be done. but core pretend only 2 things can be done... hense their false narrative of
"gigabytes by midnight or LN"

What would be your ideal Bitcoin? Is it still Bitcoin Cash? You were debating for Roger Ver's narrative not too long ago.

no i was not. but seems your buddies have been telling you if people dont love core they must love cash.. (facepalm)
thats the narrow minded view of the kardashian drama.

my view is NOT network X monarchy by team A or F**k off to network Y
my view is network X that has MANY diverse teams that use consensus and all contribute and compromise until an agreement can be made of essential stuff all can generally agree on

EG
not 1mb or "gigabytes by midnight" false choices.
but consensus and compromise of 2-4mb which everyone can generally accept. (without the wishy washy bypass crap of 4mbweight limited by witness scalefactorx4) thats not actually a full utility of 4mb for all tx formats

[franky1]

Most likely Jihan Wu's degree on psychology at play here, by spreading his hashrate around and mining segwit blocks in some instances and don't in others, to trick people like franky1 into thinking his business is decentralized and he isn't calling all the shots. Naive in my opinion, that guys strikes as a classic control freak.

Too bad his shenanigans have ended up in a tricky situation as he finds himself holding massive amounts of bcash. Let's see how he gets out of this one.

though i now see some are digressing off the topic of segwit adoption, after they themselves admit adoption is slow as it takes time..

lets rply to this topic meander.. as it is funny
.. yep funny, old, outdated, mythbusted propaganda above by cellard. but gotta love your effort of that same old myth busted joke that keeps repeating for atleast 2-4 years old..
here is some tips. if you want to continue being a comedian, update your jokebook.. as people now laugh at you for using stale jokes rather than laugh with you about the content of the joke itself

p.s im a white-brit... but ill say this
i know you may have been drip-fed by fox news about terms like
"communism" "china" "bomb them bomb them bomb them"
but the reality is in china:
not every business is run by 1 man
not every facility is run by 1 man
not a whole population is controlled by 1 man.

one day i hope you take a plane journey and experience life outside your country and see the diversity of the world

and more specifically to antpool. not every facility is actually in china.
should you actually investigate such you will see that Wu doesnt manage the facilities. nor the block mining stratums. nor the decisions of the block creators deemed as "antpool"
also other pools that get wrongly classed as "china" are not china.. slush(managed by aa guy in thailand) f2pool, world wide access

..last point to make
pools cant change the rules.. but devs can. so the over all funny part is when defending a dev pointing at a pool is the weakest defense people reply with
(kid with chocolate on face: "no mummy, the dog ate the chocolate cookies and caused the crumbly mess"(dogs cant eat chocolate))

[DooMAD]

but i do laugh when a certain group treat over a billion people (china) as a single mindset.. now that is funny

For once, we actually agree on something.  I was starting to think that wasn't possible.  China is not a hive-mind and it isn't right for people to portray it as one.

though i now see some are digressing off the topic of segwit adoption, after they themselves admit adoption is slow as it takes time..

There's nothing wrong with it taking time.  You're the one who keeps gabbering about certain people not using it when you think they ought to be.

pools cant change the rules.. but devs can

Devs can propose rule changes.  They can't enforce them.  Only full nodes and miners securing the network can enforce rules. 

I'm going to call you out on this each and every time you lie about it.  Devs cannot enforce rule changes. 

[franky1]

Devs can propose rule changes.  They can't enforce them.  Only full nodes and miners securing the network can enforce rules.  

I'm going to call you out on this each and every time you lie about it.  Devs cannot enforce rule changes.  

of the network is supplied with stripped, non-full data the network no longer enforces full validations. they are automatically trated as scond class(downstream/bridged nodes) or as you call it "compatible"

new rules change without the network having to upgrade nodes.
take segwit. old nodes treat segwit as "compatible"... (the buzzword you love)

or as i call it network consensus bypass
yes we both wish for devs to used real consensus. but the bypass ("compatibility" as you call it) allowed it to change without mass node upgrade to 'opt-in'

as for the pools. the november 2016-summer17 election for segwit was consensus. and it only achieved ~35% vote.
as it was a wave a new version number if you want in...

analogy wear your old dirty underwear but wave a clean pair of underpants if you want in. only 35% of pools waved a clean pair of underpants (new vrsion number)
but then the 'mandatory update'(august '17) wasnt an opportunity for pools to wave their old underpants(stay with old version number) in the air to say they are sticking with things as they are. to prevent the new rules

the mandatory update was wear the old underpants, but you better wave new underpants(version number) in the air or your off the network. thus if pools didnt, they would be off the network
EG if there were 20 pools and only 2 pools waved new underpants(new version number) the network would be at 2 pools but show as 100% adoption... dont you get it. fake election.

you even said it yourself that core can write whatever code they lik and not be told what they can and cant do.
luke JR also said it when h said about the compatibility/ "inflight upgrades" bypass
gmax said it with is buzzword of bilateral split

core did not use the consensus election in the intended way. they bypassed it.

thus segwit got activated even without general public nodes having to change. or vote it in to a full community acceptance level. those opposing it just got ignored

then a couple weeks later it only needed one pool to create new skidmark free underwear and all nodes wont be checking that the underpants are really used(signatures of segwit tx's) as it blindly passes the 'are they underpants' test because it bypasses the full validation. (segwit provide old nodes with something that is not full data, that old nodes dont signature validate but just accept as "compatible" even though what they recive is not full real true validation data)

again the devs admit this.
downstream filtered(gmax buzzword)
bridged/stripped (luke Jrs buzzword)

again learn about luke jr's consensus bypass that he calls "inflight upgrades"

[DooMAD]

Devs can propose rule changes.  They can't enforce them.  Only full nodes and miners securing the network can enforce rules.  

I'm going to call you out on this each and every time you lie about it.  Devs cannot enforce rule changes.  

of the network is supplied with stripped, non-full data the network no longer enforces full validations. they are automatically trated as scond class(downstream/bridged nodes) or as you call it "compatible"

If you went out for a meal with a group of people and you're all eating together, then everyone else decides to order a dessert, but you don't want to, do you then whine about being treated as a "second class" attendee?  Have they "bypassed consensus" for that meal just because you don't want a dessert?  Are you going to hold a petty grudge against that one person who proposed having dessert and blame them for everything else you don't approve of for the rest of forever?  

Congrats on your -ve trust, by the way.  I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner to be honest.

[franky1]

Devs can propose rule changes.  They can't enforce them.  Only full nodes and miners securing the network can enforce rules.  

I'm going to call you out on this each and every time you lie about it.  Devs cannot enforce rule changes.  

of the network is supplied with stripped, non-full data the network no longer enforces full validations. they are automatically trated as scond class(downstream/bridged nodes) or as you call it "compatible"

If you went out for a meal with a group of people and you're all eating together, then everyone else decides to order a desert, but you don't want to, do you then whine about being treated as a "second class" attendee?  Have they "bypassed consensus" for that meal just because you don't want a dessert?  Are you going to hold a petty grudge against that one person who proposed having dessert and blame them for everything else you don't approve of for the rest of forever?  

Congrats on your -ve trust, by the way.  I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner to be honest.

awww you actually think the trust has meaning.. i think you have forgotten the point of bitcoin
you care more about cor trust, than you do about bitcoin security

if you went out for a meal as a group of 10 people and 6 people didnt want dessert. but the 4 people demanded dessert and so the whole table were given dessert. thus the restaurant were deemed as fully accepting dessert but, the waiter charged you 4 times more for your main meal because they had to scrape off the dessert from your plate and edited your receipt to show as a more expensive meal without dessert even though the reality is that a dessert was provided to everyone on the table. you were told to just accept it or f**k off to a different table.

its funny you argue that the meal order cannot change without group agreement. and then argue that people should just shut up if the group dont get a group agreement because one person gets to order for everyone
.. stop flip flopping. decide.. consensus is what you want or tyranny

[DooMAD]

i think you have forgotten the point of bitcoin
you care more about cor trust, than you do about bitcoin security

The reason Bitcoin is secure is because there's a lower resource cost for running a full node with a smaller blockweight than there would be with a larger blockweight.  That's why we're doing what we're doing.  Of all the blockchains that exist today, this one is the most secure.  We're not going to jeopardise that.

the waiter charged you 4 times more for your main meal because they had to scrape off the dessert from your plate and edited your receipt to show as a more expensive meal without dessert even though the reality is that a dessert was provided to everyone on the table.

The correct analogy would be that those who ordered a dessert get a discount on their meal, whereas you pay the same price you always used to pay before they introduced the dessert menu.  If you don't order the dessert, you can't even see it.  You can continue eating, blissfully unaware of the existence of dessert if that's what you want.  The choice is yours.  

.. stop flip flopping. decide.. consensus is what you want or tyranny

There's no flip flopping, those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  They've decided on SegWit.  That's not tyranny.  Forcing a larger blockweight onto nodes that don't want it is tyranny.  Node operators have the option of running code that supports a larger blockweight.  If or when they decide to do that, fair enough.  We can then have a larger blockweight.  But they aren't doing that now.  So stop being the guy who thinks they get to order for everyone.  You are the lone voice with little-to-no support who, depending on what day it is, wants either EC or a 4mb blockweight that everyone can use.  Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that's not what everyone else wants?  At present, ~0.53% of nodes on this network are running clients that advocate larger blocksize/blockweight.  0.53%.  And your preferred method of getting people to agree with you appears to be attacking developers and coming up with bizarre tin-foil-hat stories about how certain people control the network.  And you wonder why you're not having much success and people think you're being dishonest?  Either come up with a sensible and reasonable case that people might actually take seriously, or just wait patiently for people to decide for themselves when the right time is to run code supporting a larger blockweight.  You've made your choice.  No one is telling you what to run.  Why can't you respect everyone else's decision?

[Wind_FURY]

if core removed the wishy washy witness scale factor *4, guess what
1. both legacy and segwit transactions can in full non stripped format all happily utilise the 4mb 'weight'
2. both legacy and segwit transactions would both be 25 cents. yep cores code makes legacy 4x more expensive. not discount segwit by 75%(thus code counters their PR adverts)

Wishy washy? Wasn't stripping the witness data from the middle to the end of a block allowed more transactions to fit in a block, and wasn't it to fix the malleability issues?

Gaslighting again?

"gaslighting" new buzzword this month?..
whats next? "conservative".. "ad-hom".. yea certain buzzwords start circulating in a certain group of people, which just shows they only fed off each other in an echo chamber

Will you go far in saying that everything you said had not one single lie or half-truths? This is a "yes or no" question.

keeping the 4mb and removing the witness scale factor would actually allow MORE transactions per block
as for malleability. pfft
its more for a new TX format that is compatible for LN

Why "pfft"? It did not fix malleability?

funny part a 2-in-2out tx of legacy vs a 2-in-2out tx of segwit.. legacy uses less actual bytes on a hard drive.
(but shhh dont tell them that. they still think stripping blocks and not validating signatures and not relaying every tx is ok)

This is a stupid question. What is 2-in-2out again?

another funny part. new/re-activated opcodes can re-introduce malleability. but thats for another topic

What OPcodes would that be?

[franky1]

"gaslighting" new buzzword this month?..
whats next? "conservative".. "ad-hom".. yea certain buzzwords start circulating in a certain group of people, which just shows they only fed off each other in an echo chamber

Will you go far in saying that everything you said had not one single lie or half-truths? This is a "yes or no" question.

yes
check out the usual group you chat to. lauda, achowe, carlton. they love their 'conservative' 'ad-homs' 'compatible' over use.
even doomad had joined in with "conservative" "compatible" repetition. doomad even gets mad if i myself dont use certain buzzwords
it kinda became a strange thing i noticed and picked up on.
much like a certain mindset loves to scream bcash, china, lambo, fomo. you start to see what crowd people circle in by their use of language

as for your 'gas lighting'. seems you have picked up a new word recently. reading your posts for months it wasnt there. then recently its been used multiple times in the last month.. so its something i noticed

keeping the 4mb and removing the witness scale factor would actually allow MORE transactions per block
as for malleability. pfft
its more for a new TX format that is compatible for LN

Why "pfft"? It did not fix malleability?

correct it did not.
you can malleate a transaction now. by using legacy. so it didnt solve malleation for the network.

there are multiple ways to malleate a tx. segwit solved one that was needed to make BTC "compatible" with LN
due to how LN monitors a TX by its TXID but only for segwit transactions

and yes devs want to re introduce things that make malleation possible again for segwit tx formats.

segwits true purpose was not a network solution. it was a make a tx format thats compatible with LN. al other half promises were wishy washy PR stuff to try coaxing people to adopt and wave a flag of devotion

funny part a 2-in-2out tx of legacy vs a 2-in-2out tx of segwit.. legacy uses less actual bytes on a hard drive.
(but shhh dont tell them that. they still think stripping blocks and not validating signatures and not relaying every tx is ok)

This is a stupid question. What is 2-in-2out again?

a transaction that has 2 inputs and 2 outputs
some call it vin   vout
some call it sender   receiver
some call it spending   paying

another funny part. new/re-activated opcodes can re-introduce malleability. but thats for another topic

What OPcodes would that be?

ask your chums. a few know a few dont. and one in particular doesnt like it when im being subtle but give him no input

[franky1]

There's no flip flopping, those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  They've decided on SegWit.  That's not tyranny.  Forcing a larger blockweight onto nodes that don't want it is tyranny.  Node operators have the option of running code that supports a larger blockweight.  If or when they decide to do that, fair enough.  We can then have a larger blockweight.  But they aren't doing that now.  

you forgot your dessert analogy didnt you
people didnt ask for dessert they were happy with their main meal... but the dessert arrived at the table anyway, they were just told to not see or hand it around. and to only touch the main meal plate the waiter handed them stripped of the dessert

though the people with only the main meal pay more for their meal even if they cant be involved in having a full valid meal+dessert.

funny, flip flops you make
compatible no need to upgrade
concensus need to upgrade

just accept it.. consensus bypassed.
and yes its old news but you keep meandering topics to bring it up

[DooMAD]

There's no flip flopping, those securing the chain decide what consensus is.  They've decided on SegWit.  That's not tyranny.  Forcing a larger blockweight onto nodes that don't want it is tyranny.  Node operators have the option of running code that supports a larger blockweight.  If or when they decide to do that, fair enough.  We can then have a larger blockweight.  But they aren't doing that now.  

you forgot your dessert analogy didnt you
people didnt ask for dessert they were happy with their main meal... but the dessert arrived at the table anyway, they were just told to not see or hand it around. and to only touch the main meal plate the waiter handed them stripped of the dessert

though the people with only the main meal pay more for their meal even if they cant be involved in having a full valid meal+dessert.

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.

[franky1]

"one lone voice cant change the chains policy"(facepalm)
under consensus 65% voices said no to a restaurant chan updating the menu. infact the waiter in the chain should not have added dessert without the chain.

but i guess you now admit core own the chain........ and no longer just a waiter within the chain.

the dessert is on the table.. it never was before august 2017. but now its on the table the waiters are already dishing it out

those that didnt want the dessert had no choice. they now end up paying for it. but the waiter strips it off the plate trashes it and just gives you what you think is what you want. but now you are not given the full meal that every full paying customer should get.

again the now set full menu meal includes a dessert. you as a customer never got the chance to say dont offer dessert in august 2017(consensus)  it was mandatoryily changed(consensus bypassed, bilateral split UASF)

you are told the new full menu is compatible with the old menu as the new waiters strip the dessert off the plate..but you still pay the new full price but dont get to see the full menu any more. if you dont like it go f**k off to a new restaurant

play your silly games all you want. core changed the menu and those not wanting a new menu get a wishy washy scrubbed off version of the menu. but still pay the full price. they cant even give the dessert to others(relay) that may want the dessert. as its been stripped off the plate. thus others no longer see you as a equal peer as you dont hold a main+dessert

again it wasnt a consensus event.
if you cared about bitcoin security where no software should have the ability to do that. you would understand the issue. but your too deep in doing what they want to care about bitcoin.

again no choice no way of voting that the menu should stay the same(consensus).. it just became a upgrade your tastebuds to eat the dessert and be a full peer.. of go to a different restaurant

anyway doomad. you are protecting devs not bitcoin security. so no point in talking technical to you. hense i dont.. you might have notice i actually bothered to ELI-5 many things. but even that passed over your core defense cap
no point circling the same topic with you because you are just blind to th bitcoin security issues of "inflght upgrades"(consensus bypasses).

best bet is you go learn some romantic poetry instead and become a core romantic
you have had ample opportunity to learn whats really going on, now i think you havnt bothered more because your not interested in the network security. but only interested in core friendship

end of debate

[HeRetiK]

you are told the new full menu is compatible with the old menu as the new waiters strip the dessert off the plate..but you still pay the new full price but dont get to see the full menu any more. if you dont like it go f**k off to a new restaurant

In essence, yes. What's keeping you? There are thousands of coins restaurants out there, vote with your wallet. It's a free market after all.

That being said, it's kinda silly to change restaurant merely because they added menu options that you personally don't want to take. But to each their own.

[Wind_FURY]

"gaslighting" new buzzword this month?..
whats next? "conservative".. "ad-hom".. yea certain buzzwords start circulating in a certain group of people, which just shows they only fed off each other in an echo chamber

Will you go far in saying that everything you said had not one single lie or half-truths? This is a "yes or no" question.

yes
check out the usual group you chat to. lauda, achowe, carlton. they love their 'conservative' 'ad-homs' 'compatible' over use.
even doomad had joined in with "conservative" "compatible" repetition. doomad even gets mad if i myself dont use certain buzzwords
it kinda became a strange thing i noticed and picked up on.
much like a certain mindset loves to scream bcash, china, lambo, fomo. you start to see what crowd people circle in by their use of language

as for your 'gas lighting'. seems you have picked up a new word recently. reading your posts for months it wasnt there. then recently its been used multiple times in the last month.. so its something i noticed

Because there was no better word in what you were doing.

You told me once that fees are higher in the network today after Segwit activation than before that, backed up by your "facts". Is that not gaslighting? Fees have never been lower in satoshis/byte.



You also said that adoption is decreasing. Why is network activity increasing year on year?