Ban request for user: franky1

[dkbit98]

Most of us know this member for trolling and posting negative comments but that is a part of forum, and I don't want bitcointalk to become eco chamber without any criticism.
I believe that franky already have some limitations on his account and I think that is enough for now, there is not a single valid reason to ban him,
especially when I remember recent case when one moderator temp-banned Nutlidah and chase him away, probably forever. 
BlackHatCoiner, if you have some personal problem with franky than just click magical ignore button and his posts won't bother you ever again.

[1713483552]

1713483552

[1713483552]

1713483552

[1713483552]

1713483552

[1713483552]

1713483552

[Lucius]

Without taking anyone's side in this case, I can only say that @franky1 has its own opinion and has the right to express it on the forum like any other member - to ban someone because he thinks differently from others makes no sense given the freedom of expression this forum allows. I also think that @ franky1 has more technical knowledge about Bitcoin than 95% of the users of this forum, and this forum can hardly afford to lose such members just because they have a different opinion than others.

I could list at least 10 users who do very bad things on this forum, who have a bunch of negative feedback and flags, and I haven't noticed any of them being banned for it - and if someone happens to be perma-baned for their opinion, I think this will be the beginning of the end of this forum.

[NotATether]

Most of us know this member for trolling and posting negative comments but that is a part of forum, and I don't want bitcointalk to become eco chamber without any criticism.

Ditto. Let's not make this place more like kiwifarms guys.


Now...

If you see someone who constantly disagrees with what you are saying, the only thing possible is to ignore them (and preventing them from posting in certain boards apparently). You are unlikely to feel satisfied with the feeling of getting him banned, if his posts are already bothering you. It's human nature.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being on the extreme end of those things, but wouldn't you agree that banning a member based on his opinions is just a wee bit authoritarian?

Not when those opinions are expressed in an enforcing manner, no. I give emphasis to the fact that he's been officially banned from the Dev & Tech board and that he's the only person who has ever accomplished such thing. There's not a forum/community I've ever been on that does tolerate these people. And that's probably why he's on bitcointalk.

Anyway, I'm not against freedom of expressing one's opinions, but it's much more complicated with this occasion. If only he just expressed his opinion...

If you see someone who constantly disagrees with what you are saying, the only thing possible is to ignore them

And that's probably what I'm going to do from now on.

[Rath_]

As one of the people who frequently argue with him, I think that we should leave him be. It is sometimes tiring to confront him. I keep him away from The Lightning Network FAQ thread as I don't want to see tens of pages of "whether or not Lightning is Bitcoin" discussion every few weeks there, but I try to reply to most of his arguments in other threads.

He does spread a lot of blatant lies like: it costs $3 to open a Lightning channel, Lightning is not Bitcoin and he has recently done something that I would call a trolling attempt but our related posts got deleted twice.

And if enough people add him to their ignore list, eventually his posts will remain unchallenged and someone may believe it.

That's pretty much why I am still answering his posts.

[franky1]

ok this should be fun

lets start from the previous posers comments first

He does spread a lot of blatant lies like: it costs $3 to open a Lightning channel, Lightning is not Bitcoin

Rath used one example of 1 transaction(that was RBF enabled by the way) to persuade that transactions are 7cents..
yet the block in question of that example had an average transaction cost of $1.79
the average transaction fee for the last year has been over $2. and in the last 3 years has seen fee's of upto $60

he went extreme of saying an 7cent exageration.. but yet i did not go extreme by saying $60.. instead i said a fair value amount of ~$3.. which is shown in hard blockdata and real math of many examples.. i did not cherry pick extremes

(by the way, enabling RBF discounts fees to lower amounts purposefully to delay a confirmation to allow someone to replace a transaction in pools mempool using a higher fee, without having the newer higher fee tx being too extreme to persuade pools to drop the first)
so yea, rath used a bad example transaction to pick as his 'proof of cheap' especially when it does not compare to the average fee people do pay per transaction for the last 3years, or even 1 year, or even 1 month averages

as for me saying the lightning network is not the bitcoin network.. its not.
the N of LN pretty much explains its a different network.

why are people having a problem with saying LN is a different network

i know i know LN supporters dont like me undoing their hard work of their strange PR campaigns, where they try to sell LN as being bitcoin2.0.. but tough luck

what they need to learn is they might have a better PR campaign if they actually explained the risks (for user awareness) explained the differences of why its not bitcoin network(so that they can advertise the niche need)

after all. if LN was bitcoin network, then bitcoin network would have the features to do everything everyone needed and people would not need these other network "payment" systems

LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.. if the PR bunnys of LN actually explained the truth, they would have a better PR campaign.. but instead THEY want to confuse people

i do get it, i fully understand that a certain group of other network users want to tag themselves onto bitcoin fame to win instant trust..
but put it into this context:
if faketoshi was to create an altnet that bridges to multiple coins, including btc. and faketoshi advertised his network as bitcoin2.0. i can guarantee you that the debates would begin debunking that branding/association with bitcoin

[stompix]

I'm one of the guys who constantly argues with Franky1, he is one special piece of work, he will not accept he is wrong no matter what, he is as usual know it all, he knows everything better than everyone, you won't see him back down on stupid claims ever.

But that aside, banning anyone for his views and opinion on things, no matter how ridiculous wrong they are is simply a no! Banning members on that would turn this into a real cult where everyone would be afraid to voice any opinion that is not embraced by the majority. Just like everyone else he has the right to voice his opinion as long as it respects the forum rules, we are free to ignore or engage with him, any change in this would do more harm to the forum than franky1 would ever be able to.

If you disagree with what franky1 is saying, I would encourage you to engage in a fact-based discussion with him to try to change his mind.

Don't encourage poeple to engage in Augean tasks.
Debunk his so-called facts, easy as pie, change his mind  

EDIT:
Oh crap, he's here, watch him managing to piss everyone who was actually defending him.
Ordering moar popcorn, this is going to be good!!!

[franky1]

I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being on the extreme end of those things, but wouldn't you agree that banning a member based on his opinions is just a wee bit authoritarian?

Not when those opinions are expressed in an enforcing manner, no.

enforcing?
im not the one trying to ban users.
im not the one thats part of a group that done a mandatory fork
im not the one telling people to abandon bitcoin and use another network.

tell me again. what have i enforced?
oh wait, i remember..
when i told you to take a step away from the computer, for 10 minutes, have a cup of coffee, put aside your personal bias and think about a topic from another prospective for the remaining 9minutes 30 seconds.. its not enforcing. its actually asking you to try something that causes no harm to yourself or anyone else. but just might give you an opportunity to have a rational thought outside of your personal grievance/bias/desires/personal goals/loyalties
....

ok. lets start at the top this time
as things only look 'derailed', out of context, off topic only after messages are deleted and posts are left without explanation/defence. (standard tactic of certain people)

Franky appears to create a lot of noise when it comes to threads regarding the Lightning Network[1][2][3]. The way this person talks is ill-intentioned and does not contribute anything to the discussion. Instead, he starts yelling and spreading lies and FUD[4][5] whenever we're talking about something that is not in his interest (such as the LN) and demands from the users to do as he says[6]. Anyone who's against his ideas is being cursed.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376568.msg58708356#msg58708356
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58877861#msg58877861
[3] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58804168#msg58804168
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379599.msg58894664#msg58894664
[5] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5378173.msg58827879#msg58827879
[6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5379192.msg58878182#msg58878182

1. rath was pretending that the 1500 actual pizza orders. but only 10% successful payments. was some how not what FOLD reported direct, but instead raths wrong opinion that thre were somehow only 150 pizza orders ever ordered. and presuming they all got successfully paid. whereby in his presumption 1350 fake payments that didnt succeed with no pizza order attached. (rath presumed there were 1350 random spam payment attempts not meant to succeed)
sorry but that was not what FOLD reported

2&6. funnily enough a topic called "Re: is bitcoin scalability problem solve now?" was indeed about bitcoin scaling. and not advertising other networks.. yet.. Blackhat does not understand this fact, even when its in the title of said topic.
me saying the topic is about bitcoin scaling.. is me saying what the topic is about.

3. the noise of using the 'piss/swimming pool water' analogy is in reply to LN users using a piss and swimming pool water analogy. if they dont like it they should not have started the analogy

4. already mentioned this in previous post.

5. i mention how many fails. rath admits to fails. but then says he cant explain why it failed. then he went on to assume failures for odd reasons.
how is me saying he did 389 fails, and rath admitting he done 389 fails FUD?

also using the point 5's link.. rath admits that his "payments" are not his payments but routes of others. which goes to prove point 4's debate about the number of payments do not mean the number of actual real world purchases of goods or services the node itself makes for itself. EG juices 44 'events' were not 44 payments juice done for himself to buy things. they were events of the network to get around a LN flaw.
...
now lets pick another post to defend

There's not a forum/community I've ever been on that does tolerate these people. And that's probably why he's on bitcointalk.

Anyway, I'm not against freedom of expressing one's opinions, but it's much more complicated with this occasion. If only he just expressed his opinion...

im on the bitcointalk forum... (wait for it.. drum roll.. 3.2.1 .. here goes nothing..) to talk about bitcoin
i dont want to be advertised other networks as solutions to bitcoin.
also. balackhats opinions are not of his own mind. he says the exact same things as doomad did. like a script

yea dont want to see a group of people advertising their other network as bitcoin2.0, i dont want to see people being told to f**k off to other networks if they dont like how the other group wants bitcoin to change in their altnet favour. these are MY opinions. i am a bitcoiner.

but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers

the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped.
..mega insanity loop.. done purely just to get people off the bitcoin network
(doomad stated this insanity loop script, and blackhatcoiner is keeping the loop active by repeating it)

its these insanity loops that show those altnet bunnies do not care about bitcoin.


here is a game everyone can play.. it harms no one and causes no controversy. but is an interesting thought to realise.
read the altnet bunnies posts. but.. in your mind change their username to "faketoshi" and read it again.
it will give a whole new prospective to the context of their adverts. it a very simple experiment.

..
if the resentment is about "walls of text".. the forum rules do not like splitting messages over multiple posts
(yea i saw that game 5 years ago, trying to force me to break up my context into different posts to force me to break the rules.. ha, nice try. no dice, game over, try another game)

if the resentment is about me calling out a group of chums, fangirls, bunnies who work as a collective mind patting each other on the back for circling their closed minded PR campaign of another network between themselves.. well the merit cycling clubs and backscratching, is obvious
https://loyce.club/other/Backscratchers.html

[LoyceV]

After a number of years of reading franky1's posts, I have come to the conclusion that he believes what he writes. I have posted previously that I do not agree with very much of what Franky says, and I probably would not agree with most of his interpretation of facts, however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith.

If you disagree with what franky1 is saying, I would encourage you to engage in a fact-based discussion with him to try to change his mind. In doing so, you should also be open to having your mind be changed, if a sufficient fact pattern were to emerge.

That sounds great, but was attempted in many topics already. If franky1 would keep his crusade in just one topic, I don't think anyone would complain about it.
I'm tempted to give this one more try.

There's not a forum/community I've ever been on that does tolerate these people.

But that's something to cherish, not something to change! There are more than enough overly censored forums out there, and there's only one that I know of that actually allows people to express their opinion.

LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.

I can live with this
@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? I expect it will be "you vs a couple of other users", but from what I've seen, you can handle yourself. I would like to discuss your points on LN that I've seen in far too many different topics, and it would be nice if we can reach consensus on at least part of the discussion.
I don't think Meta is the right place to discuss the details of LN.

[franky1]

LN is a different network for a reason. it has its own usecase and niche and utility that differs from bitcoins.

I can live with this
@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage? I expect it will be "you vs a couple of other users", but from what I've seen, you can handle yourself. I would like to discuss your points on LN that I've seen in far too many different topics, and it would be nice if we can reach consensus on at least part of the discussion.
I don't think Meta is the right place to discuss the details of LN.

i can engage.
and out of respect i will even take my own advice and step back from the computer between posts and take some breathing time between posts, and avoid (as i see other do)just hitting reply to rage reply.
 
if others can do the same. and answer without shining their bias/advertising PR stance of utopia, and respond rationally and thinking outside their small box. then great

it could actually lead to some proper dialogue.

..
as for my crusade
my crusade only flows into other topic when:
other topics about BITCOIN scaling fill up with altnet advertising
other topics depict altnets as BITCOIN2.0
other topics 'sell' the utopian fantasy of security and success of an altnet
when a bitcoin scaling discussion gets told not to scale bitcoin
when altnet supporters say bitcoiners should f**k off if they dont like the scaling delays,stalls, hindrances
when altnet supporters say bitcoin should not be used for X and Y type of uses. but their altnet is what everyone should use

by the way, i also called out faketoshi, his BSV pretending to be bitcoin and his disciples when they do their altnet adverts crusades the same way LN'ers have. yet there was no controversy when the faketoshi disciples were called out.. (strange but true)

[BlackHatCoiner]

the average transaction fee for the last year has been over $2. and in the last 3 years has seen fee's of upto $60

Yes, for several days. But, everyday in average it's not more than a few cents for regular transactions. So what's your point? In 2016 there were transactions with fees up to $1000. I agree that it's more than $0.07 usually, but not a lot more.

the N of LN pretty much explains its a different network.

Congratulations Sherlock, but we never told you that Lightning and Bitcoin were of the same network. We were telling you that it's the same currency, but the millisat subunit had blinded you. Find me one post where I have told you that the Lightning Network is part of the Bitcoin Network. It's a layer, build on top of the existing network. It's a completely different network that works on an already existent network.

im not the one trying to ban users.

You're banning my time when I waste it trying to clear up your mess.

1. rath was pretending [...]

Rath consecutively pretends according to your sayings. According to you, he's a lying bastard who wants to harm the Bitcoin environment by working on a scummy project. Sorry, but you're the only person who sees things like that. I'm not going to talk about Rath's pizza for one more time. People can read the discussion and judge by themselves if he's indeed a storyteller.

2&6. funnily enough a topic called "Re: is bitcoin scalability problem solve now?" was indeed about bitcoin scaling. and not advertising other networks

You don't get to decide what's off-topic and what's not. If you think one's post is off-topic report it. However, when a user talks about the scalability problem it's reasonable enough to see Lightning posts. You've stuck on the network thing. Move on.

Blackhat does not understand this fact, even when its in the title of said topic.

So within your limits, the only thing that we should discuss as a solution there would be to increase the block size. Or shouldn't we as it's officially your punchline?

also. balackhats opinions are not of his own mind. he says the exact same things as doomad did. like a script

'Cause I decided to shut your mouth in discussions where you kept talking about the same things.

but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers

And why would you? You feel like you're shutting us up with your heavily valid and reliable arguments. People usually act like this only when they feel really annoyed.

the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped.

Not that I understand the entire sentence, but you're probably talking about the awful way we're forcing our ideas again? Yeah, hey: We outnumber you. These ideas are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Bitcoin envisioners.


Also, stop talking about our Lightning disagreements in here. It's off-topic, something that I've been blamed by you. If you want to continue this further create a thread in the Bitcoin Discussion and humiliate me.

[DooMAD]

im not the one trying to ban users.

I don't think you should be banned from the forum as a whole.  But I am curious.  Does the fact that some people would prefer to see you banned give you any pause for thought about how you conduct yourself?

If there were a topic debating my continued future here, I'd be thinking "Shit, I didn't realise I was pissing people off that much.  I'm going to rethink my behaviour".  Does any such thought along those lines even register in your brain?

im not the one thats part of a group that done a mandatory fork

But you are.  

There's no such thing as a "mandatory fork" in Bitcoin.  The code you run is entirely up to you in an open-source environment.  You either opt to follow consensus or you don't.  You are here by choice.  If you are following consensus, then you literally are "part of the group".  

im not the one telling people to abandon bitcoin and use another network.

Then what should we be telling people who ask for impossible things?  

Say someone wanted to introduce something incompatible like Proof-of-Stake in Bitcoin, are you going to tell them they can have that when they clearly can't?  No.  You'd tell them they can only have that if a significant number of those securing the network approve, which is highly unlikely.  And if they can't abide by that response, you'd then tell them they can use another network which supports that incompatible feature.  Because that's how it works.  

You know just as well as anyone else does that Bitcoin cannot feasibly incorporate every last whim or fantasy of all people.  You know that's how it is, yet you exhibit resentment every single time someone reminds you of this fundamental fact when you're the one asking for something incompatible.  To reiterate, you want things which other users do not want.  And those users outnumber you.  Deny it all you like.  Engage in whatever semantics you like to try and worm your way around the fact.  Derail every topic humanly possible (or better yet, don't).  It doesn't change a thing.  If you want something incompatible (and you do) there are other projects which cater to that.  No one is saying you have to leave, but it would behoove you to use another network if you want incompatible things.  But you don't have a sensible response to any of that, so you'll just keep whining that I'm "telling people to leave".  Despite the fact that it's the only accurate and technically correct response to your continued asininity.  Talk about playing the martyr.  

these are MY opinions. i am a bitcoiner.

but here is the thing. i dont actually ignore, delete message, request bans of the altnet supporters. i simply debunk their rhetoric adverts and PR campaigns of misleading other BITCOIN readers

the insane thing is. when they want bitcoin to change to allow offramps to other networks, and they call for a exodus of users away from bitcoin, their response is that those not wanting to offramp/exodus off, those people then have a choice to exodus and offramp away from bitcoin if those users dont like the idea of being offramped.
..mega insanity loop.. done purely just to get people off the bitcoin network
(doomad stated this insanity loop script, and blackhatcoiner is keeping the loop active by repeating it)

its these insanity loops that show those altnet bunnies do not care about bitcoin.

I would take the stance that a "bitcoiner" would recognise when their own personal desires do not mesh with those of the wider community and respect their wishes.  I don't believe you're capable of that.  Your motives are entirely selfish and you would rather other people didn't have the option to build or use anything you don't approve of.  That's not how collaborative projects work. 

[LoyceV]

@franky1: If I create a self-moderated topic (Lauda called me Switzerland for being neutral; I won't delete any of your posts, but I will call you out if you go off-topic), are you willing to engage?

i can engage.

Great! Let's take this to [self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain, and leave this topic to discuss whether or not you should be banned (which I don't expect to happen).

[franky1]

im not the one trying to ban users.

I don't think you should be banned from the forum as a whole.  But I am curious.  Does the fact that some people would prefer to see you banned give you any pause for thought about how you conduct yourself?

if faketoshi and his altnetBSV desciples wanted me banned for calling them out. would i think im the problem. no.
.. same applies to other altnet bunnies, chums

If there were a topic debating my continued future here, I'd be thinking "Shit, I didn't realise I was pissing people off that much.  I'm going to rethink my behaviour".  Does any such thought along those lines even register in your brain?

when out of millions of registered users, its only the same dozen altnet bunnies being angry.. i think maybe im just poking the correct bear cave.

im not the one thats part of a group that done a mandatory fork

But you are.  

There's no such thing as a "mandatory fork" in Bitcoin.

forks happen without the need for every node user to form consensus. this is done by rejecting old style blocks to only accept new block formats. thus the only blocks that propagate are the new style. this causes old nodes still listening to old blocks to get forked off..
you might want to check devs own wording of bip148
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki
mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times

my favoured buzzword is not madatory. my favoured word is segregation. apartheid. .. though segregation causes some confusion so i used mandated on purpose as its the DEVs chosen words

anyway, i know yet again even after reminding you after 20 times in the last 4 years..
the june/july 2017 drama about the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148 that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks
i even sent you the pretty picture many times

this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code

thus the blockchain data, node software data and github references does not lie. its all available to read

as for outnumbering?

To reiterate, you want things which other users do not want.  And those users outnumber you.  Deny it all you like.

there are literally thousands of topics about bitcoin scaling. none of which i created, which have posts by more then thousands of different users..
yet LN (advertised as the solution) only has a couple dozen topics created by the same group of people.

oh, and that pretty picture above..
(red line)shows that only <45% of miners wanted segwit from nov 16 to jun 17..
(blue line) shows a compromise agreement to have a 2mb base block and 2mb weight, as an appeasement to the community. and look. boom loads got onboard.. WITHIN DAYS(literal vertical line straight up)
for the offer of a bitcoin scaling + segwit compromise

but as you can see. once threshold was reached. the first(1mb base 3mb variant(redline)) got activated and the compromise got dropped
meaning fake vote using fake policy to not give what the compromised promise had to offer, but instead bait and switch to get a version that was only getting 45% max community agreement

the only reason you only see most of the people you read discuss LN is because of cabin fever. when a group of people are locked in a cabin. all they see is the people in the cabin. all they talk about is the things they have in common.
it ends up being stockholm syndrome. favouring those you are locked up with because its all you know and see
EG you only see me enter your closed cabin with no fear of debunking you guys. so you wrongly think i am the only one.

dont worry, your not alone though.. faketoshi has a cabin just like yours. he decorates it the same too

[DooMAD]

Does the fact that some people would prefer to see you banned give you any pause for thought about how you conduct yourself?

if faketoshi and his altnetBSV desciples wanted me banned for calling them out. would i think im the problem. no.

So no hope for betterment, then.  I suppose that was to be expected.

There's no such thing as a "mandatory fork" in Bitcoin.

forks happen without the need for every node user to form consensus. this is done by rejecting old style blocks to only accept new block formats. thus the only blocks that propagate are the new style. this causes old nodes still listening to old blocks to get forked off..

Translation:  The stronger proposal defeated the weaker one.  

If "old style blocks" were what the majority wanted, then the miners wouldn't be producing any "new style blocks" and the nodes wouldn't be propagating them.

you might want to check devs own wording of bip148
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki
mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times

my favoured buzzword is not madatory. my favoured word is segregation. apartheid. .. though segregation causes some confusion so i used mandated on purpose as its the DEVs chosen words

Use whatever words you want.  The fact is you still have a choice.  You have made the choice to stay, because you recognise the benefits of Bitcoin's security and network effects.  If you really felt that strongly about your purported moral high ground, you wouldn't have stuck around.  But you know in order to stand by your beliefs, you would have to sacrifice the security and the network effects we offer you.  Your alternative would be to form a weaker network.  So instead, you willingly continue to support the fork you claim you hate and you can keep reaping the benefits.  You complain about it, but you stay.  I'd say that sounds an awful lot like a hypocrite.

anyway, i know yet again even after reminding you after 20 times in the last 4 years..
the june/july 2017 drama about the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148 that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks
i even sent you the pretty picture many times
this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code

thus the blockchain data, node software data and github references does not lie. its all available to read

And it all shows that consensus was reached for BIP91.  And yeah, the numbers don't lie.  You can argue about how it happened for the rest of forever, and I'm sure you will, but it's done now.  

as for outnumbering?

To reiterate, you want things which other users do not want.  And those users outnumber you.  Deny it all you like.

there are literally thousands of topics about bitcoin scaling. none of which i created, which have posts by more then thousands of different users..
yet LN (advertised as the solution) only has a couple dozen topics created by the same group of people.

You're deflecting from the real issue when you talk about topics.  Topics aren't securing the network.  Words are hollow.  Actions are what matter.  Your problem is that people are running code you don't approve of.  Those are the people that outnumber you.  

You're still pissing into the wind.  But you're blaming me for the fact that you're covered in your own piss.  I'm sure you believe that's justified in your head, though.  

But go ahead and have the last word.  Unwatching this topic now.  I know how it's going to go.  Just like every other topic you're involved in.  After a while everyone realises you've failed to overcome any of the arguments presented against you and you're just making noise for the sake of not conceding defeat.

[franky1]

Translation:  The stronger proposal defeated the weaker one.  

If "old style blocks" were what the majority wanted, then the miners wouldn't be producing any "new style blocks" and the nodes wouldn't be propagating them.

did you even read your own referenced bip91

This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000)

While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.

you had 4 years to look at the details of the block data and bips. and yet you still get it wrong

the first proposal (1mb base 3mb weight) envisioned november 2016, still had under 45% eagerness in june 2017.
devs were getting frustrated that their new feature wont activate as-is

the compromise:
the second proposal (2mb base 2mb weight) envisioned march 2017, announced june 2017 garnered 90% in days
because it "promised" bitcoin block scaling and segwit as a side node
(however the second proposal was a bait and switch to get first proposal to activate.)

as for pretending that if miners didnt want first proposal they just wont make blocks with the first proposal flag..
thats what they did from nov16 to jun17. no harm no foul.. no activation due to lack of desire
(this humiliated the devs that thought it would activate by december 2016)

what you find is the second proposal that 'promised' base block scaling+segwit. needed them to change to the new format after the second proposal threshold else the merchants like exchanges(nya party) would reject the old blocks(bip91). making none of the exchanges see the old blocks, meaning miners making old blocks cant spend rewards..

so they were forced to do new blocks as a condition of proposal 2, else end up not on the network/not receiving spendable rewards

however once the new blocks got 100% threshold. due to the old block kill off..
..proposal 1 kicked in and proposal2 was forgotten and not activated.

its funny how you spend many years jumping into this topic about the segwit activation.. yet you have never once referenced any blockchain data or bips or code.. correctly, but i have..

seems your the one that cant succeed in the debate.. but knowing you will ignore what has been said and come back in a few months pretending that mandatory was never a thing again and need to be disproved once again.
and then cry again that you got yet again disproven and argue how i never shut up about it..
sorry but if you want to tell people your version.. i will correct you. no matter how many times you forget and then re-assert your version

your memory may forget and your hopes that others forget. just so you can then pretend it never happened..
..but the blockdata remains solid and clear of the flags used and the dates used. goodluck disproving the blockchains version of events. it never forgets. nor can it be edited

[pooya87]

forks happen without the need for every node user to form consensus. this is done by rejecting old style blocks to only accept new block formats. thus the only blocks that propagate are the new style. this causes old nodes still listening to old blocks to get forked off..

You are telling only part of the truth that suits your agenda.
Nodes accept all blocks that are valid before the set target and check how many of those block are signalling for the change. If the total number is bigger than an agreed percentage (usually more than 95% which is the case with SegWit) they consider the change locked-in and if the remaining minuscule minority (ie. 5%) goes against the change their block will be rejected.
If they see that the threshold is not reached (eg. 94% signalling) they will go ahead as before without enforcing the change and reject any block that goes ahead with the fork.

you might want to check devs own wording of bip148
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki
mandatory 'activation day flag" is mentioned a few times

BIP-148 was never used to activate anything and I personally consider it an attack against bitcoin.
You bringing up here as an argument is another reason why people consider your posts FUD.

the NYA signalling threshold which activated the bip 148

This is a lie.

that then disregarded old blocks to fake a 100% listing of bip9 segwit blocks

You keep repeating the same lie but "disregarding a block" means chain split. Show us the chain split that happened in 2017 with the blocks that weren't signalling and were disregarded? You can't because there was no such thing.

i even sent you the pretty picture many times

this image is not some made up gameplay. its graph is actual references to actual flags in block data. and the flags are reference numbers used by actual bips. which actually activated feature in actual code

And it contradicts what you said 2 sentences above about miners activating BIP148 which they are clearly signalling something else!

and look. boom loads got onboard.. WITHIN DAYS(literal vertical line straight up)

If you bother to look at any other fork, they look pretty much similar. From BIP16 (P2SH) to BIP340-3412 (Taproot) they activated in more or less a similar way where miners wait until last moment and suddenly they all signal within days to get the 95% threshold (or the high threshold required for that fork) and remain up for the next 2 weeks.

[Pmalek]

I find franky very irritating and he reminds me of cryptohunter and those who came after him that were obviously not his alts. Walls of text that I am not interested in reading to tell you the truth. But this community is different from anything else I know, and that also entails putting up with someone like franky. I even remember meriting one or two of his posts in the past because I thought they were good. But that was before he became such a source of annoyance.

I do understand why OP would want to see him get banned, but I don't want that to happen because the majority doesn't agree with his views. With so many of his posts deleted, he will achieve what OP wants on his own sooner or later. I doubt the mods patience is unlimited. Spam and trolling does get you banned.

It's frustrating taking the time to reply to this person only to see your posts get deleted because franky's got deleted and so did your quotes. Instead of quoting him, just use @franky1 and say what you want to say. I don't think that will get deleted. I am not sure what his goal is. Whatever it is, it's not working. Those who want to use LN should just do it despite what franky says.   

[PrimeNumber7]

And also, I agree with this:

however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith.

That's the key here.  If I thought franky1 was posting about LN topics simply to piss everyone off, I'd absolutely support a ban.  But I've read his posts before, and I really think he's posting sincerely and is not trolling.

Right. franky1, from what I can tell, is an OG bitcoiner. I think he probably wants to see bitcoin succeed.

After a number of years of reading franky1's posts, I have come to the conclusion that he believes what he writes. I have posted previously that I do not agree with very much of what Franky says, and I probably would not agree with most of his interpretation of facts, however, I don't think he is posting in bad faith.

If you disagree with what franky1 is saying, I would encourage you to engage in a fact-based discussion with him to try to change his mind. In doing so, you should also be open to having your mind be changed, if a sufficient fact pattern were to emerge.

That sounds great, but was attempted in many topics already. If franky1 would keep his crusade in just one topic, I don't think anyone would complain about it.

franky1 has a particular opinion. This opinion is true for all threads that relate to the subject his opinion is about. There is no reason for franky1 to keep his opinion limited to a certain number of threads just because he disagrees with other forum members.

People disagreeing with you is a part of life. The fact that franky1 disagrees with you, is not a microaggression. You can try to change his mind if you wish.

[franky1]

Walls of text that I am not interested in reading to tell you the truth.

With so many of his posts deleted, he will achieve what OP wants on his own sooner or later. I doubt the mods patience is unlimited. Spam and trolling does get you banned.

what you might find interesting. is the majority of my deleted messages are not due to bans/trolling . but due to the fact that i have tried separating my posts into separate talking points. but forum rules dont like separate posts, they prefer walls of text, and so merge posts together.

to avoid having notifications of 'merged posts' i do more frequently just 'wall of text' to avoid such annoyances..
but to clarify. this forum prefers walls of texts. rather than separate posts per point being made.

my 'deleted message' stats are actually more proof of wanting to separate my talking points for clear reading, but the forum wanting to 'wall of text'

just today alone i earned 3 more "deleted messages" because the forum mods decided to merge 4 posts into 1 wall of text
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg58920210#msg58920210.

so dont say i didnt try