Do some people still believe that Bitcoin "Core and Cash bilaterally split"?

[Wind_FURY]

Franky1 is the biggest advocate of this idea in the forum. I respect that, but it is very debatable. What if Bitcoin Cash increased its block size and doubled its monetary supply? Would that "bilateral split" idea be easy to accept? I believe it won't.

[1714914663]

1714914663

[1714914663]

1714914663

[Herbert2020]

it could have been a bilateral split if there were actually two sides with near equal merit: bitcoin and bitcoin cash.
what we had was two sides that were equal: going with SegWit and second layer; going with block size increase hard fork.
and we shouldn't confuse the two together in my opinion. the later could have been a bilateral split but the former (which created bitcoin cash) has nothing to do with that. it was a centralized attempt to take over and create an altcoin to make money using the other rejected proposal for scaling bitcoin as an excuse to make them look legit. a very similar thing that is being repeated by BitcoinSV these days.

[Zin-Zang]

Franky1 is the biggest advocate of this idea in the forum. I respect that, but it is very debatable. What if Bitcoin Cash increased its block size and doubled its monetary supply? Would that "bilateral split" idea be easy to accept? I believe it won't.

Did you mean to say Block Speed and not block size, as BCH has already increased block size?

Doubling their amount to 42 million coins, so in a world that has 7.7 billion people,
you think that is enough to be a global currency used by all.
It is not , a True Global Currency needs at least a billion or more coins.

US $ Fiat alone had ~80 trillion dollars according to a CIA 2017 report.

[Wind_FURY]

Franky1 is the biggest advocate of this idea in the forum. I respect that, but it is very debatable. What if Bitcoin Cash increased its block size and doubled its monetary supply? Would that "bilateral split" idea be easy to accept? I believe it won't.

Did you mean to say Block Speed and not block size, as BCH has already increased block size?

No, I said an increase in block size AND doubled the monetary supply. I am asking if there is a change in perception of Bitcoin Cash's so-called "bilateral" split if there was an increase in the cap to 42 million coins.

[franky1]

Franky1 is the biggest advocate of this idea in the forum. I respect that, but it is very debatable. What if Bitcoin Cash increased its block size and doubled its monetary supply? Would that "bilateral split" idea be easy to accept? I believe it won't.

actually it was the devs that advocated bilateral split... its their buzzword

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

i am against throwing opposers off the network so minorities get a faked consensus. but the devs advocate it (UASF)

 If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% .. then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

i am against the idea of mandatory forks.

i am against single brands of software deciding whole network decisions,
i advocate consensus of community acceptance via joint communication to find healthy compromise which a majority can accept on and stay one network

i am against splitting the network just so one team can get their way.

WAKE UP and stop the fud, atleast research consensus
if you dont want to research what actually happened network-wise

atleast research your topics and stop the social finger pointing unless you can prove it

show one post where i say i love and advocated bilateral split and ill show many  where i am shunning the devs for performing one

also throwing my username into the same sentance as cash is foolish too. but i can see your motivations are clear now
you really have gone full FUD.

[franky1]

lastly it was the cores side that were not happy with thier 35% spring 2017 support. which is why core devs (luke JR) proposed the mandatory activation.

you do realise there is this thing called the blockchain. its a immutable archive of events and transactions.
if you were to actually check the blockchain data you will see that core triggered it at block 478558.

the funny thing is core supporters actually shouted that cash didnt trigger until hours later.
(core only accepted segwit flagged blocks at 13:23)
(cash only accepted cash blocks at 18:12)

the code that achieved this split was wrote by core devs (luke JR UASF)
https://www.uasf.co/#uasf-signaling

What is BIP148?

BIP148 is a UASF that is designed to cause the existing SegWit MASF deployment to cause activation in all existing SegWit capable node software (which currently is 80% of the network nodes). How does BIP148 Work? From August 1st, 2017, miners are required to signal readiness for SegWit by creating blocks with the version bit 1. This will cause all SegWit ready nodes, which make up over 80% of the network, to activate and begin enforcement. Link for reference: luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/segwit.html. Miners must also check blocks prior to their own and ensure that they also signal for SegWit, and only build on those blocks.

please do your research next time

lastly. its the mindset of some that bitcoin(network) should be owned by one team brand. wherby they go on the 'defend the dev' parade and try to make it sound that anyone who is against a dev is against bitcoin. purely to continue their mantra that bitcoin should have one central team.(facepalm)

its a real shame that those people cannot distinguish the difference between one dev team control from the concept of a whole network concept of consensus of teams.
have a nice day.

[DooMAD]

the funny thing is core supporters actually shouted that cash didnt trigger until hours later.
(core only accepted segwit flagged blocks at 13:23)
(cash only accepted cash blocks at 18:12)

The funny thing is, it takes two sides to have a disagreement and this statement was issued before SegWit was activated:

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67

Why pretend it's all the fault of only one side?  They clearly had plans to leave the BTC network and make another one that suited their stance on scaling.

i am against throwing opposers off the network so minorities get a faked consensus. but the devs advocate it (UASF)

 If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% .. then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

i am against the idea of mandatory forks.

i am against single brands of software deciding whole network decisions,

Is that really what you've been blathering on about for all this time?  Seriously?  A dev pointed out something that users and miners are free to do if they wanted to, so because of that, you think developers are somehow "in control"?  Congratulations on proving once again you don't understand consensus.  

Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run.  That's consensus in action.  People run what they want and the software automatically matches them up with other people who want the same thing.  And it goes both ways.  Some people want to run code that doesn't conform to what users on this network want.  Why should they not have that choice?  Why do you think you can force everyone to reach an agreement when they clearly don't want to?  There is no compromise that everyone would have accepted.  We had years of infighting to demonstrate that fact.  Why can't you let it go?  However it might have happened, it's done.  You can't go back and change it, nor can you stop it from happening again.  And I'll explain why:

A "single brand of software" doesn't decide consensus, users and miners do.  They do that with every single block.  You can be "against" whatever you like, even if that means you're against reality itself and reveal yourself to be totally ignorant and deluded in the process.  Bitcoin doesn't work they way you'd like it to.  Chances are, it never will.  You can't prevent users and miners from running the code they are freely choosing to run.  You can't prevent hardforks, softforks, UASFs, whatever.  You can't prevent "throwing opposors off the network".  I don't care how much you hate it or how wrong you believe it to be.  It's not your call.  It's all just a whole bunch of different people running software.  No one can control that.  If what you want falls by the wayside, that's just too bad.  C'est la vie.  Don't expect any sympathy just because other people don't want what you want.  None of us are here to go out of our way to appease you.  Perhaps it's time you accepted that?

Also, please take just a brief a moment to consider that it might not be the best idea telling people to "research consensus" just because you've come up with your own unique and highly distorted interpretation of what it means.  If you're the only one who takes exception to what gmaxwell said, then it stands to reason you're the one who is out of step with everyone else here.  In which case, perhaps you might want to go back to learning it all from scratch because you're the one who doesn't understand it.

I now fully expect you to start talking about social dramas and poking bears (you're not a bear by the way, you seem more like a weasel or rodent) and do some whining about insults.  All the usual Franky1 deflections to avoid admitting you don't understand the first thing about permissionless freedom and consensus.  Again, it's just people running code.  In the grand scheme of things, none of what is said here changes anything.  The market decides, not me or you.

[franky1]

Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run.

here you go. forgetting your own "compatibility" flip flops

nodes that are "compatible" did not get to opt-out. they were sheepishly treated as accepting without option
those that chose to use nodes that oppose and want something else were thrown out.

(block rejections) (ban node)

consensus is not about rejecting blocks/banning nodes.
consensus is about having proposals. and those proposals only activate when there is majority community agreement

banning nodes and rejecting blocks first is not consensus. its about apartheid. (splitting the community and only accepting votes from one side) to fake a consensus

EG apartheid analogy
july 2017: 2 black people, 4 mixed race, 4 white people on a bus.
august1st 2017: get the 2 blacks off the bus and then not be concerned about the 4 mixed race
mid august: get the bus driver to count the votes of white people who want only white people on a bus.(4/4)
november 2017: now buses are only for white people


july 2017: 20% nonsegwit, 45% compatible, 35 segwit ready.
august1st 2017: get the 20% nonsegwit off the network and then not be concerned about the 45% compatible
mid august: get the corecode to count the votes of segwit1x flag who want only segwit1x on the network (35/35=100%)
november 2017: now the network only has segwit1x

remember 45% "compatible" were not voting. they were sheeped as abstainers

[DooMAD]

Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run.

here you go. forgetting your own "compatibility" flip flops

nodes that are "compatible" did not get to opt-out. they were sheepishly treated as accepting without option

Let's imagine for a moment that I accept your definition that Non-SegWit nodes are not full nodes.  If that's the case, why does it even matter what the opinion of non-SegWit users are?  You can't rationally argue that you're not a full node but you should still have a say in what consensus is.  That makes no sense.  Would you like me to formally declare that you don't matter and leave that as the final argument?  Because I can do that if you want.  But it betrays the reality that you still have a voice in the rules that govern the network.  As I've stated before, if enough users ran the client you use, consensus would change.  If the software you run wasn't a full node, how could it possibly achieve that feat?

july 2017: 20% nonsegwit, 45% compatible, 35 segwit ready.
august1st 2017: get the 20% nonsegwit off the network and then not be concerned about the 45% compatible
mid august: get the corecode to count the votes of segwit1x flag who want only segwit1x on the network (35/35=100%)
november 2017: now the network only has segwit1x

remember 45% "compatible" were not voting. they were sheeped as abstainers

That's certainly one interpretation of the timeline.  Here's another:

Feb 25th 2017:  Shaolinfry, a Litecoin developer, posts the topic Moving towards user activated soft fork activation.  A small, but vocal, number of users like the idea.

March 31st 2017:  I compare UASF to a 'cold war' scenario, giving an indication that I wasn't partial to the idea.

April 14th 2017:  Gregory Maxwell goes on record as stating he does not support UASF.

June 14th 2017:  Bitmain announce their "contingency plan" of launching an altcoin with a 72 hour premine.  Almost everyone thinks it's hilarious and/or terrible.  It is dubbed "bitmaincoin" and widely ridiculed.

July 16th 2017:  The Bitcoin cash fork is fomally announced by ViaBTC in response to something a Litecoin developer said on a forum.  

July 19th 2017:  BIP91, A "compatible" softfork proposal created by a non-Core developer, began to be signalled by miners.  

July 21st 2017:  Technically, BIP91 signalling wasn't due to commence until the 21st July.  Proof again that no one is in control.  It also marks the date I described UASF as a "User Anticipated Spectacular Falter" due to a total lack of support from nodes.

August 1st 2017:  BCH forked away as they announced they would in July.  No one forced them.  They freely chose to do it.  UASF was a total non-event.  I laughed.

August 8th 2017:  BIP91 was locked in by 90+% of the hashpower on the BTC network.  Some UASF supporters were extremely upset by this, as they felt their consensus had been bypassed, even though that's not actually a thing.  They thought their vision for Bitcoin was best and didn't care that they didn't have adequate support for their ideas.  Remind you of anyone?  The only difference is, many of the hardcore UASF supporters had the decency to move on with their lives instead of whining about it like a spoiled child for the next year or more.

Mid-August 2017:  BTC1/Segwit2x (which is unrelated to BCH and I don't see why you always conflate them unless it's to deliberately mislead users who weren't around at the time and wouldn't know any better) continued to raise the possibility of a hardfork and chose not to implement replay protection, so some users took the decision to run code that would disconnect them from the network.  BTC1/SegWit2x failed to launch anyway, so it didn't even matter in the end.

August 23rd 2017:  Segregated Witness is activated.

August 24th to November 2017:  Franky1 is still trying to figure out what's going on.  Apparently, he never does.

November 2017 to present day:  Franky1 eventually arrives at the conclusion that Core is somehow at fault for everything written above, even though anyone rational can see that's not correct and they really had very little involvement in any of it.  Franky1 perceives the above events as a dastardly conspiracy by a tyrannical group of developers who rule with a vice-like grip on power.  No one else appears to see it that way and naturally assume that Franky1 may have been dropped on his head a few too many times as an infant.

[franky1]

August 1st 2017:  BCH forked away as they announced they would in June.  No one forced them.  They freely chose to do it.  UASF was a total non-event.  I laughed.

im laughing

the segwit supporters announced in spring (feb/march)
and even you show that the cash side didnt announce until june/july

so saying segwit side reacted to cash is funny..
cash reacted to segwit side

the uasf campaign began before april (USAF.co was Creation Date: 2017-03-22T22:19:32Z)
the UASF mentioned the august 1st date

bitcoin ABC began months later(bitcoinabc.org was Creation Date: 2017-05-09T14:59:42Z)

check the blockchain. you will see that all the events lead to the block 478558 being the target block

(core only accepted segwit flagged blocks at 13:23)

nodes opposing segwit couldnt stay on the network as is, so had to shift
(cash only accepted cash blocks at 18:12)

but it is funny how you try to down play segwit activation attempts as just small social stuff that didnt happen and how you avoid mentioning core devs.

goodluck in life. but blockchain data dont lie and even domain who-is search shows who started what

[franky1]

anyway putting doomad interuption aside.

having upgrade proposals that use mandated dates/blockheights is not consensus.
diluting the community in half is not the solution

if a proposal cannot get majority. devs need to compromise and say they need to go back to the drawing board and make a new proposal
not double down on same proposal by adding a new method to force the proposal acceptance via a date/blockheight threat of adopt or get banned/rejected, which fakes a vote by only counting less than half the community

[DooMAD]

August 1st 2017:  BCH forked away as they announced they would in June.  No one forced them.  They freely chose to do it.  UASF was a total non-event.  I laughed.

im laughing

the segwit supporters announced in spring (feb/march)
and even you show that the cash side didnt announce until june/july

so saying segwit side reacted to cash is funny..
cash reacted to segwit side

Yes, UASF announced a split first, so Cash announced a split in response.  I thought I made that clear.  You don't need a domain whois search to show when UASF started, because that was literally the first thing listed in the timeline I posted.  Try to keep up.  But UASF didn't happen.  There was dedicated code for UASF.  If you wanted a compiled version of that code, you had to get it from a repository which was forked from Core's.  It even says so right at the top of the page:



But when the time came, hardly anyone was running it.  UASF was a dismal failure in terms of actual participation.  It was an empty threat with no real weight behind it.  The BCH split clearly had a little bit more impetus, since it actually resulted in a legitimate fork.  You could certainly argue that the threat of a fork was enough to set events in motion, but then it could also be argued that they were jumping at shadows and, in the end, UASF was a big pile of nothing.  

SegWit was activated by miners.  Argue about it all you like, that's what actually happened.  It's only a "bilateral split" (see, I'm still on-topic   ) in the sense that neither side were going to back down and something had to give.

anyway putting doomad interuption aside.

having upgrade proposals that use mandated dates/blockheights is not consensus.
diluting the community in half is not the solution

So tell us how you'd prevent anyone from doing that without jeopardising permissionless freedom.  Show your work, don't just provide an "answer".  How do you stop any one of the billions of human beings on this planet from creating code that divides the Bitcoin community?  Please explain.  I'd love to hear this.

if a proposal cannot get majority. devs need to compromise and say they need to go back to the drawing board and make a new proposal

Which developers are you referring to?  They don't all have to agree.  Developers are not a single, unified entity.  And they certainly don't "need" to make a new proposal just because you think they should.  Some of them did come up with new proposals.  Not all of them were well received.  That's how the split occurred.  People didn't agree.  You can't make them agree.  People do whatever they want, regardless of how much you whine about it.  And again, if we had to wait for all the developers and the entire community to agree on everything, you wouldn't even have that client you're running right now.  Every single argument you've ever put forward about consensus would result in a worse Bitcoin than the one we already have now.  I strongly recommend you stick to what you're good at and focus on that fee priority thing instead.

[franky1]

gotta love doomads persistance with person attacks and social drama.

So tell us how you'd prevent anyone from doing that without jeopardising permissionless freedom.  Show your work, don't just provide an "answer".  How do you stop any one of the billions of human beings on this planet from creating code that divides the Bitcoin community?  Please explain.  I'd love to hear this.

by having the original consensus bip and the community stick to it.

you do realise if core did actually stick with the 2015 consensus of the early version community compromise of segwit2mb. core would have got segwit activated in 2016 without the august 2017 hard fork (THEY call bilateral split)
without the diluting the community. without all the delay.

and i do laugh that you still think core should control the network without community "permission"
seems you forget consensus and again flip flop in and out of it

make up your mind. EG
"Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run."

^ so greg does need users and miners "permission" - "depending on what people run"

but yea i expect a fip flop about how greg can push his code through because he doesnt need communities "permission"
then later a post that greg has to abide by what the community "permit"

but you forget that if greg is using a inflight upgrade that makes 45% of nodes not need to opt-in or out. for something to activate or not. then greg adds code for his 35% friends to kill off the 20% that vote out.
then only counts his 35% friends.

thats not consensus.
the code to allow th backdoor activate or F**k off should not be used again. and should be stripped out.
but now we the community have no control because core would just say "we dont need your permission"
and dilute the community down to any opposers of core.

if you cant see that core are now a central power house. or your going to flip flip to deny they are central.. (the core) your missing the whole point of decentralisation and your missing why bitcoin was created to solve the byzantine generals issue without having to have a CORE general

(dont reply with a flip or a flop about saying does or doesnt need permission until you have convinced youself which. and then decide to stick to that narrative..
you have for months flip flopped in and out of needing or not needing. so try not to state other people are wrong unless you are ready to stick to one narrative)
)

[franky1]

anyway putting doomads personal conversation aside.. yet again

back to the topic.
if cash wanted to do as windfury said. who cares they are an altcoin.
it has no relevance to bitcoin

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for

[DooMAD]

and i do laugh that you still think core should control the network without community "permission"
seems you forget consensus and again flip flop in and out of it

make up your mind. EG
"Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run."

^ so greg does need users and miners "permission" - "depending on what people run"

but yea i expect a fip flop about how greg can push his code through because he doesnt need communities "permission"
then later a post that greg has to abide by what the community "permit"

but you forget that if greg is using a inflight upgrade that makes 45% of nodes not need to opt-in or out. for something to activate or not. then greg adds code for his 35% friends to kill off the 20% that vote out.
then only counts his 35% friends.

thats not consensus.
the code to allow th backdoor activate or F**k off should not be used again. and should be stripped out.
but now we the community have no control because core would just say "we dont need your permission"
and dilute the community down to any opposers of core.

if you cant see that core are now a central power house. or your going to flip flip to deny they are central.. (the core) your missing the whole point of decentralisation and your missing why bitcoin was created to solve the byzantine generals issue without having to have a CORE general

(dont reply with a flip or a flop about saying does or doesnt need permission until you have convinced youself which. and then decide to stick to that narrative..
you have for months flip flopped in and out of needing or not needing. so try not to state other people are wrong unless you are ready to stick to one narrative)
)

There is no flip flop, you simply don't understand what I'm saying.  Your grasp of the English language is atrocious.  Allow me to break it down for you in a way you might possibly comprehend (fingers crossed, but I won't hold my breath).  Here's the quote again:

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% .. then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

Greg is pointing out that it is those securing the network who ultimately decide if/when a fork is activated, not developers.  Oddly enough, I agree with this statement, because it's true.  It is users and miners who decide consensus.  There is no permanent rule in the code saying that it always has to be 95% support to activate a change.  To demonstrate that this statement is correct and that users and miners decide, I asked you to show me in the code where it says users and miners can't change threshold for activating a fork.  Only it should be obvious that if code were introduced to say it always has to be 95%, that rule itself could still change if people ran different code.  So again, you can't make an argument as to why the above quoted statement is incorrect.  You don't actually have an argument, you just have a series of overly emotive and misguided pleas that don't actually mean anything.

The point is no one needs permission to code anything.  Not me, not you, not XT, not UASF, not BU, not Core, nor any other person or group.  You are the only one advocating that developers aren't allowed to code what they want.  And even if someone did agree with you (and there's no sign of that happening yet), there's no practical way to enforce it.  There is no code to prevent softforks.  You are advocating a social change because there is no code to achieve your desired goal.  You then cry "social drama" when anyone points out that what you are advocating is yet more social drama because what you want isn't even based on code or logic.  It's just one emotional plea after another with you.  You say it's about the code, but every "argument" you make boils down to a plea for people to not code stuff you don't personally approve of.  I'll say it again, none of us are here to go out of our way to appease you.  You don't always get what you want.  People can code stuff you don't like.  It's allowed.

No amount of you calling them "inflight updates" instead of softforks will change reality to prevent them from happening in future.  There isn't code you can "strip out" to prevent "backdoor activate or F**k off".  What you want is not possible.  Go play with fiat if you don't like softforks.  That's the only solution anyone can offer you.   


//EDIT:  Oh god, there's more.  For the love of fuck stop double posting.

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

"The original consensus mechanism", is not fixed.  You do not personally get to decide that we have to set in stone forever what the threshold for fork activation has to be.  It's just another one of those things that is not your call to make.  If everyone happened to agree with you that it has to be 95% forever, fair enough.  But I think that's an incredibly dumb idea and would result in a totally ossified codebase where nothing ever changes.  Maybe that's precisely what you want; a completely dormant and stagnant Bitcoin, mired in petty squabbling forever, while it is gradually surpassed by other market contenders you happen to hodl <cough>BCH</cough>.  I mean, who can even tell anymore with you?  There must be some reason for the insane drivel you spout.  It's only natural for some of us to assume it's malicious at this stage.

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for

Imagine you actually understood consensus and realised it doesn't matter who the developer is.  Devs don't decide consensus.  How many more times?

[franky1]

he does flip flop

one minute devs can do what they please no one can stop them. next minute devs dont decide but the community does..

"there is no code to prevent softforks"        = users dont decide on changes
"devs dont decide consensus"                    = users do decide on changes
"devs dont need permission"                      = users dont decide on changes
"users and miners decide"                         = devs do need permission

flipity flop

also inflight upgrades is what Luke JR calls them

funny thing with you doomad is you argue if i dont use your dev buddies terms then argue when i do
funny thing with you doomad is you argue that community voted for segwit .. then argue core didnt need a vote and nothing to stop core activating
funny thing with you doomad is you argue that events didnt happen then argue they did.

now heres the point.
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

how many times do i have to say mandate and consensus.
while you cry about writing code as your deflection

last funny part
doomad
show me cod where i an enforcing anything.
you keep on trying and failing to make things sound like i am authoritarian yet i am not the one with the code that demands, mandates and splits the network.

if you dont like my words hit the ignore button
the only people who are mandating network changes are devs.
so go argue with them about what they can and cant do because code doesnt write itself. rules dont write itself. the dvs write the rules so go argue with them about if they should b doing what they are doing.

oh wait.. your response "no one should tell a dev what to do...". while hypocritically doomad wants to cry and tell people on a forum to have no say, no opinion and not talk. purely because ......... well who knows why doomad dislikes opposing opinions
truly funny he thinks my words on a forum actually changes networks rules...
this forum is not github. its not compiled into a binary. so i do laugh when doomad thinks my words are stopping devs

you gotta laugh doomad really thinks this forum gets compiled into code and actually affects the network.
when he wakes up and realises only developers write code and its what they write that actually changes the network. he will realise that malicious changes to the network are the fault of devs.. not forum users.

[franky1]

anyway putting doomads personal conversation aside.. yet again

back to the topic.
if cash wanted to do as windfury said. who cares they are an altcoin.
it has no relevance to bitcoin

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for

[Wind_FURY]

i am against throwing opposers off the network so minorities get a faked consensus. but the devs advocate it (UASF)

But when the UASF happened, would you agree that Segwit as an inclusive soft fork was better for the network because it did not throw anyone out of the network?

i am against the idea of mandatory forks.

Were you against Roger Ver's "must fork to big blocks or be left behind" which caused a chain-split?

also throwing my username into the same sentance as cash is foolish too. but i can see your motivations are clear now
you really have gone full FUD.
 

Is it FUD? You are the person who first told me about the idea of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split into two. Would you still have the same perception if Bitcoin Cash hard forked to double the monetary supply to 42 million?

[Kakmakr]

Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run.

here you go. forgetting your own "compatibility" flip flops

nodes that are "compatible" did not get to opt-out. they were sheepishly treated as accepting without option
those that chose to use nodes that oppose and want something else were thrown out.

(block rejections) (ban node)

consensus is not about rejecting blocks/banning nodes.
consensus is about having proposals. and those proposals only activate when there is majority community agreement

banning nodes and rejecting blocks first is not consensus. its about apartheid. (splitting the community and only accepting votes from one side) to fake a consensus

EG apartheid analogy
july 2017: 2 black people, 4 mixed race, 4 white people on a bus.
august1st 2017: get the 2 blacks off the bus and then not be concerned about the 4 mixed race
mid august: get the bus driver to count the votes of white people who want only white people on a bus.(4/4)
november 2017: now buses are only for white people


july 2017: 20% nonsegwit, 45% compatible, 35 segwit ready.
august1st 2017: get the 20% nonsegwit off the network and then not be concerned about the 45% compatible
mid august: get the corecode to count the votes of segwit1x flag who want only segwit1x on the network (35/35=100%)
november 2017: now the network only has segwit1x

remember 45% "compatible" were not voting. they were sheeped as abstainers

The fork was actually a way to segregate the races, because they did not want to drive on one bus together, so they created two busses, one for the whites and one for the blacks. So, the fork was actually unforced "Apartheid" in the Bitcoin world.  

Why should people be forced to ride in one bus, if there are enough busses for each of the races? They can even "fork" a bus for people who wants to ride together.  

The fork gives people the opportunity to decide what they want to do and this is why consensus is so important in the Crypto currency world. <Fork off and do your own thing>

[Wind_FURY]

Plus I believe franky1 has "community" and "miners" clumped in one group. The community wanted Segwit but Jihan and the mining cartel didn't. Miner signalling for its readiness to activate something does not represent the community.