seeing as you admire the word "state" to refer to certain group of elitist authoritarians. i shall refer to certain dv team as "dev state" for your benefit
Anyone can propose anything, but "will it reach consensus" is the question.
.....
Allowing anyone to propose any idea on Bitcoin would be stupid.
first sentance i was beginning to think you were starting to understand the consensus mechanism of 2009-2013
second sentance you went full censorship-centralist authoritarian and it seems you prefer a central dev "state" in control
but atleast you confident enough to admit your preference.
in a consensus mechanism that existed 2009-2013 anyone could propose anything. code it, run nodes release the source and let anyone run it. with no fear of being thrown out the network. because proposals wont activate without high majority consensus. so it would cause no bad effects on the network, because proposals would not be active unless majority had run them.
funny thing is other full nodes such as xt, classic, bu and others never made mandates. they were happy to just run nodes and see and wait to find out if they got popular. they even adjusted and compromised down a few features to be more of what the community were looking for. but again never made mandates or coercions or threats. it was just run it and see what happens if nothing happens then they walk off with tail between their legs and come back with another proposal that appeals more to the community.
but these days the "dev state" would throw certain nodes off the network before the certain nodes even got majority support simply to make it appear that the "dev state" has 100% loyalty..... hense why altcoins are being made.
"the dev state" were losing with only 35% vote before their consensus bypass idea was implimented.
the "dev state" should have just went back to the drawing board and actually code something that would have NATURALLY and using the 2009-2013 mechanism got them an activation. without having to resort to threats of a mandated contentious fork("dev state" advocated buzzword "bilateral splits")
this is why developers not part of "dev state" are now just giving up on the "dev state" version of bitcoin and making alts. because of the "dev state" censorship and control over what proposals even make it into "the roadmap"
p.s the NYA signee's are part of the central "dev state" which you seem to adore as kings.
the segwit2x part of the NYA was just subterfuge to rally the sleeping sheep into accepting segwit. with a empty promise of 2x if and only if segwit1x got activated.
barry silbert DCG.co organised NYA
barry silbert pays pieter wuille, gregmaxwell, samson mows, luke Jr's wages
DCG.co/portfolio/#b - notice blockstream, notice btcc
as for the jgarzig, gavin andressen implementation of NYA
DCG.co/portfolio/#b - notice BLOQ
i already told you many times. it was a 3 card trick
well i should say a 3 hat trick. samson mow and core devs were very proud to wear their UASF hats
i still find is so strange how a year later. even when financial data, even when block data. even when code exists and even admissions by thee devs themselves has made the situation clear.. that you and certain chums of your are denying it all and pretending one minute that bitcoins consensus is as open as 2009-2013.. and then a few minutes later flip your opinion to that of defending the "dev state" actions.
there is no point in you trying to dismiss history. blockdata and code doesnt lie. and its all found in the blockdata that certain things did happen to fake the 100% "dev state" loyalty
now imagine this.
imagine a dev team that was not part of "dev state" done a mandated activation.. would you herold them as new kings. or would you be arguing that their approach and method of activation was wrong and not consensus
