Those securing the network choose what activates. This is the crux of your inability to comprehend. "Other groups" can make changes if users agree and activate those changes. BIP91 is a prime example.
again throwing nodes off and doing REKT's
BEFORE an activation..
try to stick with one narrative
I'll leave the narratives to you. You're the storyteller, after all.
I've made it abundantly clear that users were given multiple choices. Users
could have opted to run a client flagging bits to express support for a 2mb base weight. But instead, many of them opted to run the client that disconnected nodes flagging those bits.
Since you think users are just "
sheep", you instinctively apportion full responsibility to the devs who wrote the code.
Since I think users made their own judgement call, I naturally apportion full responsibility to the users who ran the code.
This is why we're never going to agree.
do some research
core devs call their users sheep by saying how their followers dont need to choose options due to "compatibility" "inflight upgrades" "consensus bypass" masf uasf and all the other buzzwords THEY invented for a controversial fork
im the one saying users should not be. and that bitcoin should be diverse
by the way. if you done research you would know it didnt take a mass community adoption of nodes doing the cull, to cause the cull...
.. which is another thing your not understanding.
you keep thinking that the cull pre activation would only have happened if there was a majority adoption for a cull..
seriously do some research
and before u dredge up more mis-understanding meanders from your past scripts. .. no compatibility* does not mean a node is a full node after activation while not having to upgrade. its a node set that it will accept pigeon english stripped data as valid oxford english without doing a full grammar check.
hint the data a 'compatible' node gets is not the same as what a fullnode gets, they are just set to just blindly accept.
why do you think the bahavior of 0.8-0.12 is so much different to 0.13-0.14 and why nodes released after august 2017 are treated as a whole different tier to the others.
*(compatibility, stripped, filtered, downstream, no witness, signature validation bypass... whatever new sweep under the carpet buzzword core devs use to mean the same thing)
I'll leave the narratives to you. You're the storyteller, after all.
This is why we're never going to agree.
blockchain data, CODE, stats =in my favour
stories, narrative flip flops, social drama = in your favour
if you dont wanna do independant research, dont want to listen to opposing discussions. then there is a ignore button.
just quit your flip flop social drama meanders. as its not just boring. but not original.
trying to blame me and others who have not activated code on the network as if non devs are some how some malicious attack force is the most hilarious part of your arguments. especially when you get emotionally insulting about it.. but after time, your jokes do become stale
bad code gets wrote by bad devs. so when there are controversial things that people yars later are still fighting to get resolved. then obviously there is an issue.
EG the reason people think LN is the only solution is because thy have just given up thinking core devs will sort bitcoin out. so the only optimism they have left is that some other network will do something different.
