Ban request for user: franky1

[BlackHatCoiner]

I doubt the mods patience is unlimited.

It turns out it is. They keep deleting his posts years now, but he hasn't be banned (even temporarily) for once.

Instead of quoting him, just use @franky1 and say what you want to say.

Mods aren't robots. They can understand if my post is part of a discussion that has now ended. I don't have to quote/mention him. Just replying to a post that doesn't exist anymore is enough to get mine deleted as well.

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

But, really, what does that mean? Alright, so we both have a common goal. However, each want it to succeed in another way. I personally see it succeeding as long as there's consensus for something whether that's big blocks or second layers. Franky disrespects that. He wants us to do as he says. He can't comprehend that what has distinguished Bitcoin is this significant detail.

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.

We all knows that's a lie. Yeah, they delete the individually made posts, but merge their content into one, so nothing is removed from your text. If you want to make another point don't double-post. Use the horizontal rule instead.

There have been many of your posts deleted due to trolling.

[1714575616]

1714575616

[1714575616]

1714575616

[1714575616]

1714575616

[1714575616]

1714575616

[PrimeNumber7]

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

But, really, what does that mean? Alright, so we both have a common goal. However, each want it to succeed in another way. I personally see it succeeding as long as there's consensus for something whether that's big blocks or second layers. Franky disrespects that. He wants us to do as he says. He can't comprehend that what has distinguished Bitcoin is this significant detail.

For second layers, a consensus is not needed -- as long as the second layer is compatible with the rules, a second layer is possible, even if no one agrees with the implementation of the second layer.

I think franky1 has his own way of thinking about how to approach problems. This is likely different than many other people's ways to approach problems. I think it is franky1's goal to change people's minds via his posts. I cannot say that franky1 changed my mind, but I can say that I thought about things I might not have necessarily thought about had I not read his posts.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I've already made it clear that I don't support a ban, but hats off to franky1 here for making factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning in a thread complaining about his factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning.

*Chef's kiss emoji*

[suchmoon]

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.

We all knows that's a lie. Yeah, they delete the individually made posts, but merge their content into one, so nothing is removed from your text. If you want to make another point don't double-post. Use the horizontal rule instead.

It's not a lie. He does get a lot of posts merged by mods and those count as multiple deleted posts. It's also quite possible that if you report franky1's post for trolling and your report is marked as "good", his post was deleted for some other reason.

I've already made it clear that I don't support a ban, but hats off to franky1 here for making factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning in a thread complaining about his factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning.

*Chef's kiss emoji*

Let's be fair, half of this merit (no pun intended) should go to the people feeding the alleged troll.

[BlackHatCoiner]

For second layers, a consensus is not needed

Exactly! That's why we, referring to off-chain supporters, realize how things work and try to improve the system without having to enforce anybody to change the rules they follow. The scalability problem is rather political than technical. It requires a smart solution that doesn't intensifies our political differences.

It's not a lie.

Then it's the half truth. He gets his posts merged as I've said, but we can't consider those deleted... The content of those posts still exists. I was referring to those that have been removed for good.

Let's be fair, half of this merit (no pun intended) should go to the people feeding the alleged troll.

You mean trying to clear up the reckless balderdash of the alleged troll? Yeah. Someone has to fight misinformation, apparently.

[suchmoon]

Then it's the half truth. He gets his posts merged as I've said, but we can't consider those deleted... The content of those posts still exists. I was referring to those that have been removed for good.

franky1 was responding to a post saying that the large number of deleted posts will get him banned because of "spam and trolling". He explained that most of his deleted posts are not "spam and trolling" but merged multiposts. I think that's a fairly reasonable response and has factual basis.

Let's be fair, half of this merit (no pun intended) should go to the people feeding the alleged troll.

You mean trying to clear up the reckless balderdash of the alleged troll? Yeah. Someone has to fight misinformation, apparently.

You can't have it both ways. If you really honestly think franky1 is a troll, the best way to defeat him is to not engage him. If you want to argue with him, that's fine, but you gotta take some responsibility for the ensuing chaos. This is even more jarring in a thread like this where LN discussion should be off topic.

Trust me, I've fed many a troll over the years. Never led to anything positive.

[franky1]

It's not a lie.

Then it's the half truth. He gets his posts merged as I've said, but we can't consider those deleted... The content of those posts still exists. I was referring to those that have been removed for good.

the stats noted in a earlier post of my deleted messages.. do not refer to a word count (your suggestion of message contents not removed).. they refer to posts deleted. POST count.. not word count

when i make 4 posts in a topic and 3 get merged into the first. it counts as 3 deleted posts..
 it does not count as 0 posts deleted and 0+- word count changes (your silly thinking)

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.

the blue line is the NYA(148) people agreed to the NYA meaning the blueline(148) reached its threshold and activated.
part of 148 is to ignore old blocks on august 1st. and guess what happened on august first BCH
this split, by old nodes seeing the old blocks and new nodes not.. meant that the new nodes seen only 100% blocks signalling for segwit(91) redline, whilst old nodes forked to BCH

wait.. let me check does the bch blockchain exist.. pooya thinks it doesnt.. so i must be wrong... ..
...
ok im right BCH does exist. so pooya is wrong.. ahh that was easy

if you want to pretend there was no chain split.. then you are ignoring the existence of BCH
if you want to ignore that 148 and 91 happened then you are ignoring all blockdata of the 2017 time period that contains the mentioned flags in those bips.

so instead of shouting a narrative of a story you were told by a buddy.. try using blockdata and also actual bips..
.. dont deviate by showing other bips for other events. dont rationalise your story with other events social lack of controversy.

you may not like me. but you cant honestly be saying that the blockchains immutable ledger is lying
.. it was a nice try on your part to try and defends your buddies versions of stories they also heard. fables usually pass around like campfire stories.

but try to stick to hard data and reference-able  code.. rather than stories.

seems out of all those that talk of versions of events in 2017. i am the only one that has shown the graphs that reference the block flags and referenced the split causing BCH and the bips used to do it..
everyone else has just been screaming "wrong coz misinforming troll"

i do find it funny how you think there was no split in august 2017.. .. now that is misinformation.. seems your story telling made a whole altcoin disappear.. oh wait, its still there

your entitled to think im a toll. but atleast do the research now and again, it might teach you something that counters the buddy narrative

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[NeuroticFish]

the blue line is the NYA(148) people agreed to the NYA meaning the blueline(148) reached its threshold and activated.
part of 148 is to ignore old blocks on august 1st. and guess what happened on august first BCH

if you want to pretend there was no chain split.. then you are ignoring the existance of BCH
if you want to ignore that 148 and 91 happened then you are ignoring all blockdata of the 2017 time period that contains the mentioned flags in those bips.

so instead of shouting a narrative of a story you were told by a buddy.. try using blockdata and also actual bips..

You ask to discuss about the block data.
Does Bitcoin blockchain "know" about BCH splitting off? I don't think so. According to bitcoin's blockchain BCH doesn't exist.
That BIP activation and the split is recorded probably on BCH chain, which doesn't matter in this discussion, since we talk about bitcoin, not altcoins.
So, I may be wrong, since I don't know the things that good, but imho you are also getting into the discussion things that should not be there.

It's all about how one looks at the things.

[franky1]

You ask to discuss about the block data.
Does Bitcoin blockchain "know" about BCH splitting off? I don't think so. According to bitcoin's blockchain BCH doesn't exist.
That BIP activation and the split is recorded probably on BCH chain, which doesn't matter in this discussion, since we talk about bitcoin, not altcoins.
So, I may be wrong, since I don't know the things that good, but imho you are also getting into the discussion things that should not be there.

It's all about how one looks at the things.

the bitcoin code and the bips refer to a block number where a split would happen to start the segwit activation process. and guess what magic blockheight BCH started at...
.. ill leave you to answer that when you have a lightbulb moment.

you can also check bitcoins blockchain for the flag day. by looking at the flags in the header and seeing when certain flags reached their needed amount. this is available in bitcoins block data.

for those that dont want to read hard data, i also supplied a nice lil graph that shows the flags in image form, for nice simple viewing..
shame the fable story tellers that can only shout "wrong because troll" cant show same block data or put it into a nice graph for easy reading.. so atleast dont blame me for not trying. but maybe consider the other side hasnt tried, but has cried

note:
by the way when i get something wrong i can admit it.
it has been 4 years. and memory is what memory is.
so i checked if i was right or wrong about the 148+91 bips.. as some have been demanding i retract my statement because their opinion is that 148+91 were not used. so after checking. they indeed were used.

 but here is my admission. it was bip91+148 not bip148+91
i simply got them in the wrong order.
91 succeeded at block 477120 (23rd july)
148 succeeded at block  478,484 (aug1st)
which because of the bait switch of demanding pools flag for segwit. near 99% of pools were making new flag blocks, and BCH didnt get its first(old) block that caused the split until 478558(august 1st)
they were not seeing any old flag blocks for 74 blocks

what you also might find relevant and factual. is why would pools fear bip91+148. well they both indicate mandatory rejecting of old blocks. why would they fear this if most users were not using these softwares that incorporated the bips.
because the NYA nodes(merchants, exchanges) WERE using software that would reject pools old blocks. this software was the UASF.

pools didn't need all users to run new software to activate a fork. all it needed was the commercial services that allow pools to spend rewards with to use software that will reject blocks that dont fit the commercial services designated rules.
other users didnt need to upgrade due to "backward compatibility" of new stuff.

anyway.. to boil the events down..
the blue line in the graph on previous page was bip91(NYA) and the red line was the segwit
to anyone that still does not want to believe that 148 and 91 were used..
may i refer them to some more prominent bitcoiners they might believe
ill refer you to theymos https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2017191.0
ill refer you to sipa https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/56994

so if you want to debate that 91+148 were never used.. then argue with them first

though it seems theymos has been maybe a slight instigator in some peoples belief that a chain split didnt happen.. even though bch did happen and is active today as proof.

but hey, at least im linking bips, block numbers and references to other notable members that say that bip91+148 were used..

now lets see the ignorant 'it didnt happen' show their proofs that forks didnt happen and bips were not used.. or lets see them shout and scream and cry "wrong because troll"

have a good day. goodluck

[pooya87]

You can't have it both ways. If you really honestly think franky1 is a troll, the best way to defeat him is to not engage him. If you want to argue with him, that's fine, but you gotta take some responsibility for the ensuing chaos. This is even more jarring in a thread like this where LN discussion should be off topic.

Trust me, I've fed many a troll over the years. Never led to anything positive.

You can and should ignore trolls but you can't and shouldn't ignore misinformation because it is misleading anyone who would come upon said posts.
For example misinformation is the only reason why even today there are people who think signatures in a SegWit transaction are "removed" from the blockchain! Or for more than a year people were scared of using the new SegWit addresses since someone kept repeating a buzzword called "anyone-can-spend".

[franky1]

For example misinformation is the only reason why even today there are people who think signatures in a SegWit transaction are "removed" from the blockchain! Or for more than a year people were scared of using the new SegWit addresses since someone kept repeating a buzzword called "anyone-can-spend".

1. nodes not supporting segwit do get trimmed off blocks without the weight. its why a block has to have separate txid for the different formats, because otherwise a block validation would glitch/reject for the older nodes, also those older nodes not supporting segwit, cant then be used as IBD seeders for other peers as their stripped blocks wont 'compute' if given to a segwit node.

yep segwit nodes which connect to non segwit node, strip a block to pass it to a non-segwit node.(the backward compatibility premiss) but a non segwit node cant then relay that block to a segwit node as its been stripped
core devs pretend 'its all good' your still part of the network' yet your not, you become less part of the relay/propagation network. so thats why that was mentioned to make people aware they are less involved in the relay/propagation/IBD support of other peers.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/91648 - he wrote segwit code in bitgo so i think you should respect his knowledge

same goes for pruning. if you prune your nodes blockchain. you dont have the blocks to then provide IBD support to other peers. making you less part of the decentralised security backbone of the network. and treated as a leacher not a seeder. again ifnorming people of how features affect their involvement in the network protocol is actually a good thing to advise, not something that should be remained hidden and swept under the carpet like its meaningless.

2. before august 2017 it was said that segwit was soft and that it didnt cause a fork and that its safe to use, the debate explained that people cant just use segwit softly until its actually activated and majority support it via hardfork..
the end result is that devs decided to not include the key creation/wallet payment code of segwit until after activation, rather than include it before activation with the other segwit code to prepare for segwit.. because they acknowledged the anyonecanspend problem would cause a problem if anyone tried to make a segwit transaction before activation via a hard fork.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#upgrading-1
The wallet provided with Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 will continue to only generate non-segwit P2PKH addresses for receiving payment by default. Later releases are expected to allow users to choose to receive payments to segwit addresses.

oh and please note. im the only one thats backing up my opinions by code, bips and references from devs.. others however can only reference their chums social thoughts on personality opinions(boring social drama)

[Pmalek]

The direction in which this thread has gone makes it no longer suitable for Meta. We are no longer discussing whether or not franky1 should/could be banned. The topics now are the Lightning Network, BIPs, and SegWit. It can't be moved to Bitcoin Technical boards, because franky1 is banned from posting there. Maybe locking it would be the best thing to do as there is obviously no support for banning the person. Would be nice to see him calm down a bit though and spread his wings.   

[BlackHatCoiner]

The direction in which this thread has gone makes it no longer suitable for Meta.

This is another problem with franky. You start talking about something and he tries to change the subject with his derailing bad-stats. I demand from pooya87 and franky1 to stop going off-topic here and if they both want to continue their talk in the thread dedicated to franky (if pooya87 hasn't given up already). Otherwise I'll have to lock it.

when i make 4 posts in a topic and 3 get merged into the first. it counts as 3 deleted posts..

Again, I'm not talking about merged posts. They do count as deleted, but aren't those the reason I've started this thread.

[suchmoon]

You can and should ignore trolls but you can't and shouldn't ignore misinformation because it is misleading anyone who would come upon said posts.

Not in this thread though. Pick your fights.


https://xkcd.com/386/

[franky1]

The direction in which this thread has gone makes it no longer suitable for Meta.

This is another problem with franky. You start talking about something and he tries to change the subject with his derailing bad-stats. I demand from pooya87 and franky1 to stop going off-topic here and if they both want to continue their talk in the thread dedicated to franky (if pooya87 hasn't given up already). Otherwise I'll have to lock it.osts. They do count as deleted, but aren't those the reason I've started this thread.

the reasons for wanting me banned is because you dont like my comments about altnets, scaling, bips used for mandatory forks.. and thus i am allowed to defend myself about the reasons.

even the 71* post deletions you have pretended are post deletions related to posts which content should disappear fully, rather than merged posts. and i responded to defend that i did not have 71* post deletions which content needed to be removed

as for not liking me entering a topic to derail it into another subject.
i dislike when you enter topics discussing bitcoin scaling, where you interject to advertise an altnet.
i dislike when someone wants to talk about blockchains and again you mention getting them into altnets (that have no blockchain)

here is one example
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5364836.0
a user wants to learn about blockchains and become a blockchain developer. and blackhat instead advertises an altnet that has no blockchain

if still unsure of examples or want more. or just want to look at the contradictions,  there is a search function at the top. use it and put
LN lightning
into the search criteria and put
blackhatcoiner
into the user. click search and see how many topics are not about altnets/lightning but where blackhat has mentioned LN

funny part is. a good PR guy would not see my& others&others dislike of their altnet as a cause to cry, get angry, abusive over and threaten to ban. instead a good PR guy would wonder why are there users that dislike the altnet, and then think of ways to make the altnet better.

*oh its no longer 71 its 74.. and those 3 extra are merges, not content removal


my issues with altnetters is not that LN exists, my issues are:
altnetters saying their alternate network IS bitcoin
altnetters saying bitcoiners shouldnt buy coffee on bitcoin
altnetters saying bitcoin shouldnt scale because altnet is where people should transact
altnetters pretending its 1999 days of floppydisks and dial-up when its obviously 2022 in era of 4tb hard drives and fibre
altnetters saying bitcoin is limited in transactions, when its them imposing the limit not change
altnetters saying bitcoin is expensive to transact on, when its them imposing the fees not become cheap
altnetters saying people dont need to be fullnoders, and to prune off the blockchain because the blockchain is meaningless
altnetters saying pruning and only storing UTXO related to 'your wallet' is still helpful to the network

as well as all the past stuff where things are being promised as scaling solutions. but never settle,finalise with 100% guarantee.

and if anyone hates the grammar usage of buzzwords like altnet fangirls.
i did not start the buzzword games.
bitcoiners that want bitcoin scaling got called "bigblockers" first.. so fair play, lets play your games
if you dont like being called names.. note the irony

[BlackHatCoiner]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it unless your disagreement is rooted in the oppression of my own rights.

However, I've changed my mind about the ban request. This forum reminds me the significance of freedom it constantly seeks, whether that's from discussions or from the project it's dedicated to. I believe that your right to talk, even propagandistically, is more important than the actual content of your talk.

And I'm not locking this, 'cause it'll contradict the above. Whoever wants to add something is welcomed to.

[franky1]

but dont worry, you dont need to stick your foot out to step up and defend people to the death. especially when your the second inline putting your foot out to trip people up and let them fall off a cliff edge .. to their death.

maybe not try stepping infront of people pretending to defend. but instead just step back a bit, especially if your armour consists of a wearable billboard for an altnet

can i just ask one simple question which might clear up the opposition between us and make me understand you better

why do you hate blockchains soo much with your pruning crusade and altnet campaigns


what do you have against satoshi's 13 years old invention, which has got you so riled up to be everything against blockchains?

[BlackHatCoiner]

why do you hate blockchains soo much with your pruning crusade and altnet campaigns

I don't hate the technology. The technology is brilliant. It's the first technology that has to do with finance, politics, psychology and sociology. What I hate is the alibi some people find to adopt it, such as the current madness with NFTs. And it may go even worse: Some people want to connect their tangible properties to that technology which makes no sense to me. Blockchains exist to avoid the central point of failure while the change of the tangible items' rights is a procedure that involves observance of laws.

Countless users of Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, <any_other_shitcoin> envision the global adoption of their cryptocurrency and its corresponding features. However, they can't comprehend that this adoption won't do good to them besides their pockets. The devotees believe the governments will get involved with the technology without understanding that... The point is lost if they will. This leaves me to the conclusion they do everything for the profit with a smartly formulated alibi.

what do you have against satoshi's 13 years old invention, which has got you so riled up to be everything against blockchains?

Have you ever asked yourself if you are against it? You who want everything to happen in your way? Sorry, but you don't get it out of my head; you don't want consensus, but you can't stand without it at the same time. That's why you're using Bitcoin and not a fork. 'Cause you know it's invaluable, but paradoxically, you're against those alternative, innovative solutions such as the LN. Those people's willingness has given you the Bitcoin you're now enjoying.

[franky1]

sorry but your pretty much copying the mindset of doomad(un-original)

the "franky you want everything your way" rhetoric
im not the one doing mandatory forks, banning users, and trying to get users over to altnets
heck i(and thousands of others) dont even want patents, NFT, land registry and everything on bitcoin..
bitcoin was invented for digital cash for the unbanked.. thousands of people(including me) just think bitcoin should continue to be used for its purpose. not to be condemned as not-fit-for-purpose just so some other group can sell their other network as what people should use... because that offramping/exodus game is for greed and selfish profit

i get it your are not profiting from bitcoin, your jealous of those that do. and so you want to make your profit bank managing peoples payments on another network(routing). i get it its understandable. its human. everyone doesnt want to be poor, everyone wants income to live a lifestyle. no reason to deny your underlying desire for wanting people to use your favoured altnet.

yet,
im not the one saying bitcoin shouldn't be used for the very thing that it was invented for "digital cash" : white paper
im not the one trying to convince others that altnets should replace bitcoins use.
heck i have even said if you actually explained why altnets differ from bitcoin, then you might have a better PR campaign for your niche usecase.

also i know doomad and now you seem you have targetted me, with the same hitlist and mission plan and scripts, as if im enemy-number-one.. but your rifle scope has limited vision when only looking at one target, you forget that there are thousands of people that want bitcoin scaling.
heck you have injected yourself in many topics of such to sell your altcoin. so deep down you know others do want to talk about bitcoin scaling.. no point denying it. you know they exist

you think your limited scope of me must be due to me being a ego wanting to be the sole person you see.. yet i wasnt the one handing you the target. i am the one trying to explain there is more then me that exists. im not the big ego you have been told that i am.

typically yes, hitmen when on mission with one target only zone in on one person, as if only one person exists in their life that should be killed off. but there are other people. try to accept that. its a known fact that there is more then one person in the world.

you only think its just me vs the world because you are only pointing your scope at me and that has blinded you to the rest.
im not the big single ego.. your just the one with narrow vision.

again looking down a barrel of a scope limits your viewing area. especially when your chums have been the one that handed you the target list of one person, you have become narrow sighted to that one person.
it still does not mean there is only one person. even if your chums only have one target.

you may not like me. but atleast know im not the only one. even if you have a target list of one
...


NFT's are not a bitcoin thing.
as for blockchains. they are decentralised, and part of that decentralisation is that many users store the data. thus avoiding the central point of failure thing(yea i noted you trying to propagandise bitcoin as being centralised due to its blockchain(facepalm)).

the way laws work is by logging things. there are no laws unless they are wrote down and locked into something that everyone can access to read, understand and accept as the truth the majority can live by.
 
take patents/trademarks. if someone doesnt show they are the first and only inventor. then anyone can make silly claims on that property.. however, by logging who owns an asset is important for a asset owner that wants to own something.

EG if owning a house only relied on who can open the door even without the key. then any burglar can take ownership of a house.
however houses are locked to an owner by having a ledger that shows a registered ownership. with rules on how that ownership can change officially.

LN has keys, yes. but with no network consensus. two people with the keys can fight and argue over ownership. and true ownership only works with trust and amicable agreement to not be dishonest, not blackmail, not agree.  and involves punishments and watching what the other person might do 24/7 to try stopping them. which is less secure then registered community wide locks. that the majority can account and audit and agree as who deserves what.

blockchains have a deeper and bigger advantage over centralised databases, or amicable agreements of trust and promise. because there is no central point of failure in blockchains. and no trust/honesty, or two party promise involved.
yes a blockchain can be manipulated if the dev group is centralised. and i have mentioned that risk often and showed when it has been abused. thats called making the community risk aware.


bitcoin is not the ledger for home ownership, nor NFT... not everyones alibi for using bitcoin is to throw every asset into bitcoin, no one has ever said bitcoin is the land ownership registry, the nft registry, the patent registry. bitcoin is a finance/currency network for ONE asset (sats)

however if you are against networks being used for different assets. why then support a network like LN that supports many assets.
seems a little backwards in arguments to say you are against many assets being used on one network, but then support a network that supports many assets.


i actually do want consensus. the true consensus of 2009-2016, as invented by bitcoins inventor. not the bastardised mandatory upgrade 'backward compatibility' non-consensus thing that was used in 2017 where users did not need to upgrade their node before activation is allowed.(backward compatibility" = no vote at node level) nor is true consensus where the miners were threatened to change a flag else get your block rejected before activation(to fake 100% vote)
before miners were even given software that would accept the feature if it would activate.(they just needed to change a flag, not their software)

consensus is more about a feature that does not activate unless the majority is ready for it.
devs didnt like consensus as they only got 45% acceptance nov2016-june 2017
consensus is about no pre activation threat. no rejecting of blocks before activation.
consensus is just that it wont activate unless users/pools want it.. consensus is not that it activates and unless people want it they will find themselves on a fork.

in 2017 however it was activated before people were ready for it. the vote was counted before pools and users had majority adoption of the software the feature required to use the feature.

as for trying to at the end portray i continue to use bitcoin because i must paradoxically like the new gateways into altnets. sorry but no. i like bitcoin for its legacy utility. not its segwit sidesteps into altnets.
i can continue to use bitcoin for its legacy features.

i dislike the groups that want to tarnish and limit bitcoins legacy features just so they can sell their altnet proposition. i dislike the sidesteps of broken promises that dont help the legacy features scale by groups that want people to move over to an altnet by their propaganda that bitcoins legacy features are broke and limited, even when that group are the ones limiting bitcoins legacy features from scaling.


one last thing..
when i say i. its not because i am the only one. . i say i because i speak for myself. there are others, thousands of others that speak for themselves even when others agree with the stuff i say. i do not try to claim "we" are all united as a chummy group of superiority like a special egotist boys club.

i would rather have thousands of independent minds agreeing independently, than have a "we" centralised sheeple group singing from the same hymn sheet, hugging and ass kissing each other like a collective of robots.

P.S
i had another 4 messages deleted today. but before you get excited thinking its content related.. sorry but all 4 were merges.

[DooMAD]

I had unwatched this topic, but I've had a new idea and it's only suitable for Meta.  I'm not going to engage any further with franky1's ludicrous notions about consensus or LN in this topic and would urge everyone to move that conversation to LoyceV's topic.  

I believe I have a viable solution that allows franky1 to air their views without causing undue disruption:

The topics where these issues arise are threads posted in the Bitcoin Discussion board.  The forum does not yet have a board dedicated to LN.  As such, it is a reasonable assumption that when we are discussing LN in the Bitcoin Discussion board, that it involves LN transactions supported by the Bitcoin blockchain.  LN can be used on other networks, but those networks are not Bitcoin.  If franky1 has a compulsive urge to discuss LN transactions supported by other blockchains, his thoughts should be posted in the correct part of the forum.  Posts about altcoins should be made in the Altcoin Discussion board.  

Proposal:  
The moment any user starts talking about LN transactions supported by other blockchains, their post should be moved to Altcoin Discussion.  Because that is the correct place for that conversation.  If the SMF forum software does not support moving individual posts, then off-topic posts should be deleted and the author of the post can then create it again in the correct subforum.

This way, the rules of the forum are being followed.  Posts which are clearly off-topic are moved to where they should be.  Everyone gets to discuss the aspects of LN they want to discuss and no one is derailing anyone else's topic.