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

[DooMAD]

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

Well you managed to get 1 out of the 4 correct.  That's actually not bad for you.

"There is no code to prevent softforks" = a user can either opt in or not, the choice is yours, but you can't stop others opting in.  Softfork code doesn't activate unless there is consensus.  SegWit was activated with 90+% of the network hashrate.  Cry moar.

"Devs don't decide consensus" = Correct.  Users and miners decide.

"Devs don't need permission" = They can code whatever they like, but if no one runs it, then they've wasted their time.  Case in point, UASF.  Hardly any users.  A developer made UASF but the code didn't do anything because there weren't enough users supporting it.  Clearly it's in the interests of devs to create code that users want to run.  Code doesn't do anything if no one runs it.  Stop pretending that just because Core code something, it means they're deciding what consensus is.  That's flagrantly dishonest.  As always, you refuse to acknowledge that users are freely choosing to run the code Core are creating.  Note that this is nothing to do with "giving permission", because permission doesn't count for anything here.

"Users and miners decide" = nothing whatsoever to do with "giving permission" to anyone.  What part of permissionless do you fail to comprehend?  Why would you want to introduce permission to a system that works perfectly well without it?  Users and miners run what they want, devs code what they want.  

Again, it's all just a bunch of people doing anything they want to do and market forces take care of the rest.  You can't stop people from doing the things they want to do.  And even if you could, it would be terrible for Bitcoin.  At all times, the network will naturally choose what its users believe is the best code overall at that given moment in time.  

[franky1]

Again, it's all just a bunch of people doing anything they want to do and market forces take care of the rest.  You can't stop people from doing the things they want to do.  And even if you could, it would be terrible for Bitcoin.  At all times, the network will naturally choose what its users believe is the best code overall at that given moment in time.  

november 2016-spring 2017 = natural normal consensus.

summer 2017=forced mandated= not natural

i said many many many times if core wrote segwit2mb as they said they would in 2015 the community would have accepted NATURALLY via original consensus segwit. because the opposers would have also got more base block.. thus majority happy naturally.
the thing is. what got activated was not done naturally hense why a year later (3 years of debate so far) people are still waiting for bitcoin scaling solutions

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

again
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)

again
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)

and again
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)

i know you want to deflect the topic and try to make is sound like im talking about what code they can write.

but no.. what im talking about is what code should be activated on the network.
segwit august 2017 was not activated by a united community vote of users and miners.
united communiy vote of majority=consensus
bilateral split=not comsensus
mandated or ban =not consensus
apartheid=not consensus

again
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

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

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

to other readers i am sorry for repeating myself but certain people poke into topics and meander into personal social dram of twisting information and making is sound like things such as
i was advocating splitting the network.. no i my opinion has always been CONSENSUS without MANDATED threats /forks
and
i want to stop devs writing code.. no my opinion is devs shouldnt use backdoors to change the network without consensus
and
how im authoritarian.. no i am not the one with the mandated threats and backdoor code that is a security risk to the network

its strange how certain people want to argue and defend the devs then realise the point is bitcoin network security again malicious activations/backdoors

my opinion use consensus to stay united and upgrade feature the majority community want = consensus
some others opinions if you dont like it f**k off = not consensus

to the point of the topic
to make it clear
I DO NOT ADVOCATE BILATERAL SPLITS

[franky1]

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.

the community is EVERYONE
devs, users, miners

i think you and doomad have core devs and community confused. the core DEVS wanted segwit. but the community of all 3 circles couldnt agree

before the mandated threats. segwit only had 35% opt-in agreement of pools
before the mandated threats. segwit only had no real uptake/growth of core nodes
core didnt like those results. hense why lukeJr double downed with the backdoor method.

i think when i say bitcoin you only think of core..  and when i say core you only think of bitcoin. which is where the confusion you have begins

when i point out issues with core thats not me attacking the bitcoin network (again your confusion of it)
my opinion is the network/community should not be solely reliant on core. should not kiss their royal ring and sheepishly follow core devs whims.

now if you imagine the community being everyone. you start to actually picture how consensus should be a united community. and not a opportunity to kick half certain cirlces out if one circle wants something.
the endless cicle of cries that certain people have that core devs should have absolute right to do anything they like to the network is wrong.
yes let the write code. whether it be on github, a thai brides thigh or paper. release code. but saying they have the right to mandate its activation. is wrong.. as thats centralising the network to a core team

there needs to be united agreement where if for instance core propose something. they shouldnt simply get it activated due to them having a backdoor. or because they make threats and set deadlines.
if core dont get majority.. like they didnt in november 2016-spring 2017 then they should put their tail between their legs and redesign things / make a few tweaks to produce something the WHOLE community would like.

to save tim, not cause delay and actually save face. they could have actually listened to the community and obided by the late 2015 consensus which was a combination of users, merchants, devs and miners. who majority agreed to a segwit2mb
meaning by late 2016 they would have got their segwit AND the community also get 2mb baseblock
no drama. no delay. no fingerpointing, no splitting the network. no problems

[DooMAD]

i said many many many times if core wrote segwit2mb as they said they would in 2015 the community would have accepted NATURALLY via original consensus segwit.

Oh joy, more historical inaccuracies.  

Events as they unfolded were once again totally different to the distorted events you describe:

People generally supported SegWit in some form or another, but could not agree on which form it should take.  Tell me which compromise you could even somehow manage to convince that small sample of the community to agree on, let alone the entire network.  8 responders out of 22 stated categorically that they would not accept 2mb + SegWit.  That doesn't quite fit your definition of "natural consensus", now, does it?  Come back when you have a clue and remember history as it actually was.

Even you clearly said 2mb + SegWit was "weak" because "2merkle which is cludgy code".  
Then I suggested you could be a little more mature about it.  
Eventually you capitulated and described it as "better than nothin" (which, technically, wasn't really an improvement over "weak").  
But sure, keep telling us how you supported 2mb + SegWit all along and that everyone in the community "would have accepted 2x naturally" when they clearly didn't.  Even you didn't agree with it until you eventually realised it was probably the closest thing to your beliefs that you ever had a remote chance of actually getting.  

[franky1]

But sure, keep telling us how you supported 2mb + SegWit all along

(facepalm)
never said i fully supported or advocated for segwit2mb
as i have said.. community COMPROMISE to come to a consensus

EG the group that wanted 16mb, 8mb, 4mb  ended up compromising to 2mb
other groups that just wanted legacy compromised to accept segwit as long as it was more then 1mb base block

but yea just to end the debate and get things running if core actually held onto the 2015 consensus debate of segwit2mb they woulda had much more progress in late 2016

.. the funny part is the colourful chart you supplied. was a poll done AFTER certain events and drama. which swayed peoples minds in one direction or another.

but its usual for you and your buddies to pretend i say one thing . that i advocate things. when in fact i dont.
but anyway your deflecting
it clearly says better than nothing.. not love and adoration and full advocation of segwit
it clearly says better than nothing.. not love and adoration and full advocation of forking the network

this topic is about the split/fork. caused by MANDATED activation via events of august first. which the august 1st date was chosen by the segwit side.

anyway. you are still just trying to defend a dev and not talking from a secure blockchain network mindset.
so have a nice day.
(you might have a better day hugging a dev than trying to poke people that dont kiss a devs ass, because we value bitcoin security far more than dev reputation)

[mutrang23]

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.

If it increases the block size and total supply will make things worse. If this happens, will the price drop by half? And who are the owners of the supply of additional supply? Who owns it get benefits from this? Any reason I believe in this?

[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.

If it increases the block size and total supply will make things worse. If this happens, will the price drop by half? And who are the owners of the supply of additional supply? Who owns it get benefits from this? Any reason I believe in this?

if it doubles the total coin supply. then deflation is dead. mindset changes from "guaranteed limit" to "if they done it once they will do it again"
trust is lost and people dont value the coin anymore as a store of value

[franky1]

summary
its funny that people poke and finger point at me. yet i am not the one writing code that mandates crap.

if people dont like my opinion
if people dont like that i simplify explanations with analogies
if people dont like that i dont kiss a devs ass
if people dont like that i dont use devs buzzwords.. but then dont like it when i do use their buzzwords

then just get on with your lives. hit the ignore button and enjoy your blissful life of dev hugs

ill continue to care about the bitcoin networked utility and security. i care not for a devs reputation.. they will move on retire, change jobs, get bored at somepoint way before bitcoin. so ill concentrate on long term security of bitcoin. not short term financial security of a devs sponsorship ability
the core devs have plenty of funds, well over $100m to split between themselves so its not like they are starving and going to be eating chicken nuggets as their christmas meal.. so its not like they need protecting

i know some people want this forum to only contain a utopian empty promise rather than real open discussions of flaws. but in the real world its better to speak up when there are flaws. to atleast seek to get the flaws solved, or atleast warn others that things are not as they seem

if you only want to see the utopian fluffy clouds. press the ignore button and go find the fluff you seek

[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.

the community is EVERYONE
devs, users, miners

Ok, then we are in agreement that Segwit truly had consesus when it was activated without "2X" last year. The economic majority expressed themselves on what they wanted, and the miners followed. Consensus.

[cybernetik7]

Claiming an idea which Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split into two does not make it real. I wouldn't say Bitcoin Cash hard forked to double the monetary supply to 42 million. I understant that they want to leave the BTC network and make another one. But free fall of bitcoin price is not an opportunity for them, because these prices effect badly everything on the market.

[franky1]

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.

the community is EVERYONE
devs, users, miners

Ok, then we are in agreement that Segwit truly had consesus when it was activated without "2X" last year. The economic majority expressed themselves on what they wanted, and the miners followed. Consensus.

no
the community got divided. many were thrown off the network
not by desire to be thrown off the network. it was oh crap some nodes are gonna get banned

so they ended up a couple months after being told they are getting thrown off they had to:
.agree and rewrite their nodes to be full nodes
.just stall out if they had code that received full blockdata that disagreed with segwit1x
.became not full node by recieving stripped data just to remain on the network (become "compatible" <-devs buzzword)
.or create an altcoin

there wasnt a option to just say no to segwit1x on august 1st and prevent an activation. it was mandated

seriously this is not a thing you can decide by conversations. its something you have to realise by looking at the statistics and seeing what actually happened.
many stats exist

i have a question for you. are you trying to change history for a reason?
is it just entertainment for you and your buddies?
is it that your one of those flat earther/holocaust deniers that just loves twisting things?
is it that you cant actually research?

if you cant see that a true consensus bip had a november 2016 to november 2017 date, with no mandatory obligation or bans
where that consensus had no code related to anything around august.

if you cant see that a controversial hardfork bip occured in august due to code stating in august something will happen whereby it was mandated. thus not consensual .
cutting the community up and coercing the vote via diluting out opposers, ignoring some abstainers and only counting those that agree

then maybe best to you do some research.
it was not natural consensus. it was mandated
learn mandated
the word contains two word  man-date
a date chosen by man

august 1st was not consensus of do not activate unless 95% of whole community agree. because the consensus 95% was not counting the whole community because the community got divided to fake count an activation

and i can pre-empt your next ploy
it was not a consensual agreement to split it was a controversial split.
its the devs that call it "bilateral" where they wish to think the words mean joint agreement to split. again no it was a reluctant controversial split
some define the bilateral split to mean 2 splits because segwit split away from just being legacy code and cash split away from segwit

but long story short there was no way to avoid segwit1x activation due to the mandate
and who created the mandate. those wanting segwit1x

[franky1]

anyway moving on
in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point

[DooMAD]

this topic is about the split/fork. caused by MANDATED activation via events of august first. which the august 1st date was chosen by the segwit side.

"The SegWit side"?  Not all supporters of SegWit supported UASF. 

So, not only are you deliberately and misleadingly conflating the actions of UASF with the actions of Core (separate repositories, the UASF client was forked from Core's GitHub), you're also deliberately and misleadingly conflating the actions of UASF with the actions of every single person who thinks SegWit is a good idea. 

If a random user you've never heard of created a new client with a flag-day activation of Aug 1st 2019 which implemented an idea Core are currently developing, say Schnorr for example, would you instinctively blame Core, along with everyone who has ever said Schnorr is a good idea, for that too?  Even if they weren't actually supporting that particular flag-day activation?  Is that how your reasoning works?

[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.

the community is EVERYONE
devs, users, miners

Ok, then we are in agreement that Segwit truly had consesus when it was activated without "2X" last year. The economic majority expressed themselves on what they wanted, and the miners followed. Consensus.

no
the community got divided. many were thrown off the network
not by desire to be thrown off the network.

Segwit is an inclusive soft fork, if a small group in the community did not want to upgrade their nodes, then they were free not to upgrade. The network would still be whole.

The "many", are not many, and they hard forked and split away from the network. It was their desire to change the consensus rules by increasing the block size, and thrown off the network.

it was oh crap some nodes are gonna get banned

Banned by not upgrading their nodes? What? There was no such thing.

[DooMAD]

in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point

So, you're advocating putting aside any kind of technical arguments for or against and encouraging people to just jump on a bandwagon and bash anything you don't like the sound of under some vague assumption that it's "bad"?

And there I was with the impression that you didn't like REKT campaigns...   

I guess they're suddenly okay when it's something you don't like.  I'm glad we've taken this valuable opportunity to get your moral compass figured out. 

[Wind_FURY]

in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point

So, you're advocating putting aside any kind of technical arguments for or against and encouraging people to just jump on a bandwagon and bash anything you don't like the sound of under some vague assumption that it's "bad"?

And there I was with the impression that you didn't like REKT campaigns...   

I guess they're suddenly okay when it's something you don't like.  I'm glad we've taken this valuable opportunity to get your moral compass figured out. 

But you have to appreciate the debate from franky1's perspective. Although, some of them believe what they want to believe, and gaslight their way to win a debate because they know some newbies will pick it up and believe it as the truth.

Read this, https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/

[btc-room101]

i said many many many times if core wrote segwit2mb as they said they would in 2015 the community would have accepted NATURALLY via original consensus segwit.

Oh joy, more historical inaccuracies.  

Events as they unfolded were once again totally different to the distorted events you describe:

People generally supported SegWit in some form or another, but could not agree on which form it should take.  Tell me which compromise you could even somehow manage to convince that small sample of the community to agree on, let alone the entire network.  8 responders out of 22 stated categorically that they would not accept 2mb + SegWit.  That doesn't quite fit your definition of "natural consensus", now, does it?  Come back when you have a clue and remember history as it actually was.

Even you clearly said 2mb + SegWit was "weak" because "2merkle which is cludgy code".  
Then I suggested you could be a little more mature about it.  
Eventually you capitulated and described it as "better than nothin" (which, technically, wasn't really an improvement over "weak").  
But sure, keep telling us how you supported 2mb + SegWit all along and that everyone in the community "would have accepted 2x naturally" when they clearly didn't.  Even you didn't agree with it until you eventually realised it was probably the closest thing to your beliefs that you ever had a remote chance of actually getting.  

Well its a TWO-FER as we call these things, either way BITMAIN wins cuz they own both, ... so to diversify the risk, in case the segwit is the right idea party A spawns a clone of A called B, and B become successful or not.

What difference does it make when the OWNER owns both A & B, and then back to this forum where the minions quabble about how many segwits can dance upon a needle, in the MEANTIME "JACK MA" is counting real money, and selling BITMAIN-GPU-ML-ID boxes by the millions to the chinese GOV.

I love how at one time BITMAIN only accept btc-cash for an S-9 which meant you had to sell BTC to get BTC-CASH, had he not done that I think Bcash would have had ZERO capitalization.

[franky1]

in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point

So, you're advocating putting aside any kind of technical arguments for or against and encouraging people to just jump on a bandwagon and bash anything you don't like the sound of under some vague assumption that it's "bad"?

And there I was with the impression that you didn't like REKT campaigns...  

I guess they're suddenly okay when it's something you don't like.  I'm glad we've taken this valuable opportunity to get your moral compass figured out.  

funny part is. you have not read code.

under bip9 its not a "dont like it F**K off" its just a well you didnt get adoption. so put tail between legs and go back to drawing board. dont mandate.

in the last 9 years only one team/group mandated change. because THEY were not happy with the result.

my mindset is if your proposal doesnt have TRUE majority.. then rip up your roadmap and try a new road design. dont just throw tarmac down and demand crap.

but i do laugh how you pretend how those that never had any mandating code are some how the badguys.
logic fails you everytime.

as for windfurys "gaslighting" buzzword of the season. couple years ago the word your friends group followed was "ad-hom".. then "conservative". i think its time you ask your preacher for the next buzzword for you to mention.

im starting to thing the over use of certain buzzword when making personal comments might has some sort of point system behind it. like a game how many times can you slip it into a conversation unnoticed

[franky1]

in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point

So, you're advocating putting aside any kind of technical arguments for or against and encouraging people to just jump on a bandwagon and bash anything you don't like the sound of under some vague assumption that it's "bad"?

And there I was with the impression that you didn't like REKT campaigns...  

I guess they're suddenly okay when it's something you don't like.  I'm glad we've taken this valuable opportunity to get your moral compass figured out.  

But you have to appreciate the debate from franky1's perspective. Although, some of them believe what they want to believe, and gaslight their way to win a debate because they know some newbies will pick it up and believe it as the truth.

Read this, https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/

so my defense is the immutible blockchain height numbers. locked in history which shows who flipped the switch.
so my defense is the bip CODE that was the switch. which can easily show "i cant force sgwit2mb' luke Jr hypocrit coding the mandate

your defense.
a blog post from some website that core defenders probably treat as their bible
come on. show some stats, blockheights, chainhash heights. something real thats not just social drama..

you do realise the propagandists follow the bible of quoting quotes from social sites as "proof". meanwhile i just tell people about real data they they can do real research on.

[franky1]

If a random user you've never heard of created a new client with a flag-day activation of Aug 1st 2019 which implemented an idea Core are currently developing, say Schnorr for example, would you instinctively blame Core,

stick to facts. Luke Jr and chums are not "random user"
mandated code was done by the segwit/core guys.
even mr samson Mow earned a job from blockstream due to his role in it.
he even made a baseball cap and got the group to wear them and social drama the hell out of it.