UPDATE CW at conference in London WTF? SCANDAL!!! What really happened?

[DooMAD]

if you tak out his personal bias and his name calling. (the only bits you love about him) atleast start caring about the code and bitcoin and start researching BITCOIN not the social opinions of gmax

i personally dont care about gmax name calling m. because 'franky1' is not my birth certified name so it does me no harm. all i care about is the direction gmax and his chums are taking bitcoin in. as thats all that really matters.. bitcoin.. not devs

devs come and go, get bored, get paid off, change/lose their morals. so try to atleast care more about bitcoin. not a dev

We do care about Bitcoin.  That's why we keep debunking your terrible ideas where you keep trying to turn it into some sort of voting democracy crap.

We do care about the code.  You have no code.  Stop talking as if you have all the answers, when what you have in reality is absolutely nothing other than whiny desperation and bitterness that the world isn't as you'd like it to be.

We also care about personal freedom.  Something you have illustrated time and again that you would happily trample all over to get what you want.  You are not, and will never be, in a position to tell us what we can't do.

[franky1]

if you tak out his personal bias and his name calling. (the only bits you love about him) atleast start caring about the code and bitcoin and start researching BITCOIN not the social opinions of gmax

i personally dont care about gmax name calling m. because 'franky1' is not my birth certified name so it does me no harm. all i care about is the direction gmax and his chums are taking bitcoin in. as thats all that really matters.. bitcoin.. not devs

devs come and go, get bored, get paid off, change/lose their morals. so try to atleast care more about bitcoin. not a dev

We do care about Bitcoin.  That's why we keep debunking your terrible ideas where you keep trying to turn it into some sort of voting democracy crap.

We do care about the code.  You have no code.  Stop talking as if you have all the answers, when what you have in reality is absolutely nothing other than whiny desperation and bitterness that the world isn't as you'd like it to be.

We also care about personal freedom.  Something you have illustrated time and again that you would happily trample all over to get what you want.  You are not, and will never be, in a position to tell us what we can't do.

yawn
1. bitcoin and blockchains was built on consensus . it was built on solving the byzantine generals problem. however you dont want consensus or a solution to byzantine generals problem. you instead want a tyranical monarchy centralist system and sub system that doesnt even use blockchains...
sorry but thats not really you showing care for bitcoin.

and by the way. im not telling people how to think. im just displaying information and opinion and saying people should do their indpendant research
however gmax is very much into cencorship, removing opposition to hide the fact that there is an opposition to his plans. and also he is telling peopl what to think by not advising people to do theor own research.

but if you want to ignore code and block data. and just blindly trust Greg McCensorship Maxwell. then atleast just admit your more interested in giving greg a hug then you are about a decentralised payment network
and dont keep flip flipping about decentralisation if you flip back to not wanting voting or other candidate software having even utility.

you really have drunk too much of the gmax coolaid.

2. before you resort to the standard play the victim card of how im trolling you and your friends and how i supposedly meandered the topic to be about segwits bilateral fork...
just remember who actually mentioned it first to poke the bear...

I have been programmed well to think that Bitcoin never bilaterally split to "Core and Cash"? That Bitcoin Cash isn't Bitcoin? You want me to open myself to lies?

Independent research. About the lies you spread that Nick Szabo introduced Craig Wright as Satoshi? That lukedashjr said Bitcoin bilaterally split?

by you and your friends pretending core is the center of bitcoin and should remain the center is not a decentralised mindset
by you caring more about gmax's reputation then the coins code/security. shows you care more about social entertainmnt than bitcoin itself
but as gmax has actually shown. there was a bilateral fork and the rules and code and even the verification mechanisms have changed from that of bitcoin in 2016 and 2013
but hey. i bet you will favor gmaxwells side and go with the similar analogy that todays internet is the same internet as 1995
sorry but that dont play in any playbook

but have a nice day in your fanclub.

P.S
i do not assiciate or favour ver or faktoshi. my currency of preference is btc
i have never used bitcoin cash not bsv. so dont even bother trying to shoo me into other camps.
just because i want bitcoin to actually be decentralised and actually use consensus as it was intended does not make me anti-bitcoin. it just makes me anti-core and its corporate business plan

[i expect standard script replies of how im a troll how i victimise innocent people how im worthless, useless, how im shilling, how i am in the altcoins camp, blah blah blah. so hr is a pre-yawn to your normal scripts.]

[DooMAD]

[i expect standard script replies of how im a troll how i victimise innocent people how im worthless, useless, how im shilling, how i am in the altcoins camp, blah blah blah. so hr is a pre-yawn to your normal scripts.]

No, the reply is that you don't understand consensus.  You never have.  You like the notion of consensus, in a purely theoretical sense.  But in practice, running live in the real world, you hate consensus.  You can't stand the fact that anyone can code what they want and that people can run it, because it means they can run code which does things you don't personally approve of.  All the things you'll happily spend the rest of your sad life complaining about.  If you had the power to just snap your fingers and magically prevent anyone from coding future softforks, I know you absolutely would without hesitation.  That's just who you are as a person.  If you don't agree with it, there's no conceivable way it should be allowed.  You are wholly incapable of respecting the choices the users on this network have made.  You are wholly incapable of respecting the right of devs to code what they want.  If you don't like what we're running or what devs are coding, that's a 'YOU' problem, not an 'US' problem.

[franky1]

doomad. yet again soo many topics and so many times you flip flop and even now you still toeing the core party line
 with your standard scripts

however
consensus is where a feature activates AFTER majority approval. a feature then AFTER activation causes the minority opposition to not be in sync with the network .

consensus is NOT about throwing opposition to a feature off before a feature even activates, to then fake a majority to get the feature approved.

are you really clueless or just loving cores power on the network and want core to be the centralised point of the network
(its rhetorical, as your repetition of using core defence scripts makes it blindingly obvious)

again you have not said anything original nor anything that even vaguely or directly sounds like caring for the btc networks security. instead you just state the standard scripts that allow core to slide in updates without consensus and without people needing to opt in for it to activate.

its time you spent less time on core friendly chat groups and started to think about btc security .
core devs get old, retire, move on. so kissing their ass wont be a good life goal for you as it has a time limit and a cost to it.

you would be better off actually caring about the networks security not 'human leaders'

[DooMAD]

consensus is where a feature activates AFTER majority approval. a feature then AFTER activation causes the minority opposition to not be in sync with the network .

consensus is NOT about throwing opposition to a feature off before a feature even activates, to then fake a majority to get the feature approved.

I see you using the word, yet you evidently still don't comprehend its meaning.  Consensus is people coming together to build the chain they want to build.  If you don't want to build the same chain they do, why do you care if they include you or not?  Consensus has never and will never mean that you can block a feature because you don't like it.  If enough people want it, they'll find a way to make it happen and they will build that chain with or without you.  No one is waiting around for your approval.  That's just not how it works.  If enough people agree with disconnecting nodes, then yes, consensus absolutely is about that.  That's the code people chose to run, so those are the rules the network enforces.  Literally the definition of consensus.  Learn it.

Stop getting confused between the way things are and the way you'd like them to be.  Every single last argument you present on consensus is based on the way you'd like it to be, not the way it is.  You desperately want a consensus where nodes can't be disconnected before having a vote, but that's clearly not the consensus we have.  Ergo, you do not understand consensus, because you keep telling us we can't do something we've already done.  By every measure of logic and reasoning, you are wrong.

[franky1]

I see you using the word, yet you evidently still don't comprehend its meaning.  Consensus is people coming together to build the chain they want to build.  If you don't want to build the same chain they do, why do you care if they include you or not?  Consensus has never and will never mean that you can block a feature because you don't like it.  If enough people want it, they'll find a way to make it happen and they will build that chain with or without you.  No one is waiting around for your approval.  That's just not how it works.  If enough people agree with disconnecting nodes, then yes, consensus absolutely is about that.  That's the code people chose to run, so those are the rules the network enforces.  Literally the definition of consensus.  Learn it.

Stop getting confused between the way things are and the way you'd like them to be.  Every single last argument you present on consensus is based on the way you'd like it to be, not the way it is.  You desperately want a consensus where nodes can't be disconnected before having a vote, but that's clearly not the consensus we have.  Ergo, you do not understand consensus, because you keep telling us we can't do something we've already done.  By every measure of logic and reasoning, you are wrong.

consensus is about consent
CORE NODES didnt need to give consent to activate segwit because of the bypass trick of not needing to consent/opt-in that they implemented way way earlier. aka 'the backward compatibility'

but the NETWORK did need consent by nodes that were not backward, compatible.
hense why they didnt get their november-december 2016 activation

however core, before getting fair high majority network consent from all node brands to activate segwit, core pushed the opposition off the network. thus not needing their consent by just not counting the opposition TO FAKE CONSENSUS

even when you flip flop you admit your love for the idea of not needing consent anymore
you absolutely nearly orgasm that core can activate stuff 'soft' by not needing consent

look at you above talking about the network NOW not needing consent, because everything can be done soft NOW
but what you fail to realise is the network NOW is not what bitcoin WAS
your trying to deny the past where satoshi solved the byzantine generals issue

you even talk about the stuff such as how you admire how luke JR announced the way to slip things in without network consent. which just proves when your not flip flopping how you actually know that consensus has changed and become not required in recent years

you whole heartedly keep on trying to sway history into cores favour.
and that is your failure.
you care more about cores control than having an actual decentralised network

and dont even try to twist the word core distributed nodes to be the same as decentralised. as its not the same thing.

but dont bother replying as this has just been the same rebuttals every time because your scripts dont change. your favour to core is very loud, and i feel gmax should just get it over with and give you a hug already as it seems its what you want and need from him.

maybe one day your scripts will change. and i dont mean another flip flop. i mean one day you will actually realise bitcoin is more then core. and you favouring core as the sole 'reference' has been your failure

and more of a failure how you know all this but aftr a week or two you somehow pretend to have amnesia and revert back to the same scripts of core favour and pretend your version of history is right.. even though blockchain data and cod itself can disprove your version

anyway have a nice day.

[DooMAD]

consensus is about consent

In your imagination.  Here in the real world, I don't need your consent.  I find it repugnant that you think I do.  Consensus is where everyone can run what they want and the people who agree build a chain together.  That's not me reading out a "script", it's just how it works.  I could explain it to you a million times and you still won't get it, because you are obsessed with the fantasy in your head where think you matter and we somehow need to have your approval to do things. 

but what you fail to realise is the network NOW is not what bitcoin WAS

Then run an older version.  Keep living in the past.  You don't need anyone's consent.  But you can't prevent us opting in to new features via softfork when it's not your call. 

you care more about cores control than having an actual decentralsied network

You're the one who desperately wants to control things.  Every single post I make regarding consensus is with the intent of preserving freedom.  Every single post you make about your warped and misguided thoughts on consensus is with the intent to take freedom away. 

Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to implement features via softfork.
Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to set an activation date for a feature to go live.
Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to disconnect nodes running incompatible network magic that could damage the integrity of the network and lead to users losing funds.

You can't.  Because you want to stop people having the freedom to do those things. 

[franky1]

consensus

** under impression franky and doomad are the same person.
what about the ability of people to have freedom of thought?
when people see a discussion between two nyms, they anticipate that it is honest discussion and if it isn't that can psychologically manipulate them and it can go into their subconscious with your inane repetitive monotonous droning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsRatIMUSu8

we are two different people. but yes it is repetative monotonous droning as for 2 years now doomad has been repeating the same scripts and i have to keep reminding readers of stuff that is not core centric favouring.

doomad just leaves it a couple weeks and then repeats the bear poking via windfury restarting it.
its far more likely that windfury and doomad are the same person. where windfury strikes the first poke and then awakens the bear then uses the doomad name to come to the defence

their strategy is not original or new hence why it seems monotonous

[franky1]

Then run an older version.  Keep living in the past.  You don't need anyone's consent.  But you can't prevent us opting in to new features via softfork when it's not your call. 

you are so flip floppy..
you dont opt-in via softfork consensus bypass..
your just no longer having the opportunity to have an OPT whether in or out.
EG tyranny instead of consent

it used to be features did not activate unless majority consent is reached of a multibrand single network. now its just follow cores desires or find another network.
people dont get the oppertunity to stop a bug from being added or a feature that could ruin bitcoin be added.
but hey 'its core' so you just want them to do as they please unhindered, and let the community be slave s to cores decisions.

thats what you keep salivating about and love about how bitcoin has changed over the last couple years. the recent non requirement of consensus

but have a good day.

[Wind_FURY]

Who would you believe in? The person who lies, or the computer scientist who has actual experience from working on the network, for better or worse.

windy..
gmax in this very thread acknowledged the bilateral fork
gmax also stated that people need to change old versions to be compatible with bitcoin 2019
thus bitcoin 2019 is not the same as bitcoin 2009

Newbies, again the question. Who would you believe in, the person who lies, or the person who has actual experience from working on the network?

Then run an older version.  Keep living in the past.  You don't need anyone's consent.  But you can't prevent us opting in to new features via softfork when it's not your call.  

you are so flip floppy..
you dont opt-in via softfork consensus bypass..
your just no longer having the opportunity to have an OPT whether in or out.
EG tyranny instead of consent

it used to be features did not activate unless majority consent is reached of a multibrand single network. now its just follow cores desires or find another network.
people dont get the oppertunity to stop a bug from being added or a feature that could ruin bitcoin be added.
but hey 'its core' so you just want them to do as they please unhindered, and let the community be slave s to cores decisions.

thats what you keep salivating about and love about how bitcoin has changed over the last couple years. the recent non requirement of consensus

but have a good day.

Core tyranny? Where?? Segwit almost didn't activate. Its activation started with the UASF, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1805060.0

[nutildah]

You guys are simply trolling each other now -- your conversation hasn't had anything to do with CSW for quite some time. franky indeed was the first to derail the thread and make it about "consensus," but you other 2 had the chance to just ignore him. I know sometimes its hard to ignore a troll but all 3 of you are equally as guilty of highjacking the discussion by this point. Can't you just keep your battle limited to one superthread about Core vs. Others?

[franky1]

You guys are simply trolling each other now -- your conversation hasn't had anything to do with CSW for quite some time. franky indeed was the first to derail the thread and make it about "consensus," but you other 2 had the chance to just ignore him. I know sometimes its hard to ignore a troll but all 3 of you are equally as guilty of highjacking the discussion by this point. Can't you just keep your battle limited to one superthread about Core vs. Others?

windfury as usual poked the bear first.
its the usual crowd of core fangirls that trigger it.

but as for this topic of CSW.. he isnt even a btc topic. he is an altcoin topic. CSW has no power over btc
so bringing him up as a btc topic but wanting to avoid and ignore something that is btc related. and pretend it never happened is  more like the centralists who are trolling

people can call me as many names as they like but all they are doing is showing how centralist they are. its like people calling out trumps failures and how he rigged elections to get in power, and all the trump fans want the public to do is only look and talk about hillary(CSW analogy), who is not even in power and to believe trump is the good guy even though many can see he is a over power reaching creep

once you start to tell people to stop criticising those in power and only criticise those that have no power. you know the politics of a system is screwed up. we should all be critical of core, not follow them like a religion

[nutildah]

You guys are simply trolling each other now -- your conversation hasn't had anything to do with CSW for quite some time. franky indeed was the first to derail the thread and make it about "consensus," but you other 2 had the chance to just ignore him. I know sometimes its hard to ignore a troll but all 3 of you are equally as guilty of highjacking the discussion by this point. Can't you just keep your battle limited to one superthread about Core vs. Others?

windfury as usual poked the bear first.

He did not. He was purely talking about BSV supporters, but then you jumped in and made it about you.

but as for this topic of CSW.. he isnt even a btc topic. he is an altcoin topic.

Then report the first post as being off-topic. No need to respawn a boring, thoroughly tired debate that inevitably goes nowhere.

[franky1]

windfury categorised the 'anti-blockstream/core power house' people as bsv fans.. his troll
windfury brought up the word bilateral split first
windfury then tried again pidgeon holing those that oppose core centralisation as CSW/ver fangirls

I have been programmed well to think that Bitcoin never bilaterally split to "Core and Cash"? That Bitcoin Cash isn't Bitcoin? You want me to open myself to lies?

Tyranny? "Bitcoin" has split to all different forks. There's a "Bitcoin" for everyone, right?

What you call "our leaders", they are not, are the most competent developers to maintain the protocol. That's why the community/market follows them.

Independent research. About the lies you spread that Nick Szabo introduced Craig Wright as Satoshi? That lukedashjr said Bitcoin bilaterally split?


OK. You enjoy Bitcoin Cash and browning your nose with Roger Ver.

enjoy wanting just one central team running a networks rule decision making.
if only you could put aside the mindset that core centralisation and bypassing opposition as a good thing. and instead see what a true decentralised network of old btc had and should have, meaning no central 'reference'

btc is a core distributed network, not a diverse decentralised network. distributed not the same as decentralised
even windfury says it, though he hasnt really got the technical ability to realise what he is saying, when he promotes stuff like the UASF to realise what it actually does. uasf didnt even technically need user assistance. it was just a fake buzzword acronym that was used to set a mandated opposition cut-off

have a good day

P.S i have never used bch or bsv. i am critical of cores over reach because i care about btc(many should be critical and not just sheep to core)

[Wind_FURY]

windfury categorised the 'anti-blockstream/core power house' people as bsv fans.. his troll
windfury brought up the word bilateral split first
windfury then tried again pidgeon holing those that oppose core centralisation as CSW/ver fangirls

I have been programmed well to think that Bitcoin never bilaterally split to "Core and Cash"? That Bitcoin Cash isn't Bitcoin? You want me to open myself to lies?

Tyranny? "Bitcoin" has split to all different forks. There's a "Bitcoin" for everyone, right?

What you call "our leaders", they are not, are the most competent developers to maintain the protocol. That's why the community/market follows them.

Independent research. About the lies you spread that Nick Szabo introduced Craig Wright as Satoshi? That lukedashjr said Bitcoin bilaterally split?


OK. You enjoy Bitcoin Cash and browning your nose with Roger Ver.

My post you're quoting and your comment above it don't make sense.

enjoy wanting just one central team running a networks rule decision making.
if only you could put aside the mindset that core centralisation and bypassing opposition as a good thing. and instead see what a true decentralised network of old btc had and should have, meaning no central 'reference'

btc is a core distributed network, not a diverse decentralised network. distributed not the same as decentralised
even windfury says it, though he hasnt really got the technical ability to realise what he is saying, when he promotes stuff like the UASF to realise what it actually does. uasf didnt even technically need user assistance. it was just a fake buzzword acronym that was used to set a mandated opposition cut-off

have a good day

P.S i have never used bch or bsv. i am critical of cores over reach because i care about btc(many should be critical and not just sheep to core)

Newbies, the reason why the Core developers are, "the Core" developers is because they're the most competent group of people who have the best interest of Bitcoin in mind.

BUT, listen to franky1, and learn the hard way.

[gmaxwell]

wwzsocki please lock this thread and create a self moderated thread,  the subforum mods here are clearly too busy to deal with the constant derailments.

[wwzsocki]

wwzsocki please lock this thread and create a self moderated thread,  the subforum mods here are clearly too busy to deal with the constant derailments.

I thought that the fight will finally stop and these off-topic posts, but I have to agree that this too much and I will close this thread today.

I just want to say THANKS to all members who posted here in this thread and for so long maintained a really nice discussion about such an irritating topic like Faketoshi.