firstly you want to control how i talk.. emphasis control
then you want to control what i talk about emphasis control
then you want to control where i talk emphasis control
then you want to control if i should be allowed to talk emphasis control
hmm very revealing.
it says more about you then me
i have always been clear. this is an open discussion forum.. and i am frank
as for this forum and the reason i reposted a certain post content in the last couple days..
its more so that if you look at the technical discussion topic. there is alot of hype promoting of letting NFT continue. but any real talk of REAL fixes get deleted, removed and not talked about..
just look at the lack of discussion of a real fix.. yet we know the ordinals (buzzword of a type of NFT on bitcoin) are a problem of bloat and other issues..
its not childish to be trying to talk about solutions, nor about critiquing the causes, nor childish to mention what the wider community should be reviewing and pointing their eyes towards causes and real fixes
its childish to have a man child with abilities to delete proposals, solutions and fixes to then has his firends pretend there is no fix and instead promote getting people to make bitcoin a premium expense system to make it unappealing to use as a payment system
achow is abusing his mod privilege
he is mod of too many things. he wants a central point of failure (core) to only be reviewed internally(centrally) where it is moderated by core, and there is no critique or negative words said beyond 'Nack' yep in recent months he wants to add a mod layer to
github adding more self serving power, where any critical negative comments are removed. and instead any negative stuff is pretty much only allowed if its fits into a small criteria of formatting to make it difficult to critique a flaw/developer. heck he even wants to change the ACK Nack scheme..
he and a certain fews dont believe in the concept of decentralisation.. and do not believe in independent validation, review, scrutiny, critique.
where instead the very same core maintainers of every part of bitcoin discussion moderation teams
and yet you want them to have free reign to say and do as they please because "free speech" while then censoring out anything that goes against the core way.
maybe look outslde your childish view of things and think more outside your playground
I have seen that a lot of your posts have been allowed to stay.. and of course, it could be problematic to be reposting items that have been deleted - unless they were deleted for being off-topic, so you remove them to a thread in which they are "on-topic".. and perhaps it would be acceptable for you to post a link to another thread in a topic in which you believe that your post is relevant, but it had already been deleted for possibly being off-topic... I am not sure.. I don't really want your voice to be snuffed out, even though sometimes I get confused about your points and then realize that maybe you were just talking gobbledy-gook.. but other times you seem to raise points that others had not been willing to raise or you raise it from an angle that had not been presented, and those kinds of presentations can be helpful to other members, even if some of us might not agree with some of your facts, logic and/or conclusions reached.
Isn't he the only recognizable opposition in this forum?
In terms of mental health, sure.
Hearing the opposition is always good because it helps to improve.
But hearing the same bullshit, for millionth times repeated and debunked arguments does not. Also, not being civil does not.
I don't see anything wrong with his deleted posts other than a dictatorial moderation policy in those dangerous waters ( boards ).
Dictatorial? Buddy, a forum board has rules. And those rules are better to be enforced. This forum, while far from perfect moderation, does fit in this category as well. franky1 just feels like the rules aren't proper, or that the moderators abuse their power; apparently, only to him.
It seems to me that the forum is pretty liberal in terms of allowing posts to stand, and sure sometimes if posts are deleted it might be good to give a reason, especially if the post is off topic and might be raised in some other area.. but I do see that sometimes franky is bringing up bullshit political criticisms that end up fogging up technical ideas and even perverting facts, so sometimes in those kinds of cases, it should already be clear that there might not be any appropriate place for such posts.. except maybe a thread that allows franky to fantasize about whatever world that he wishes to exist with franky logic, franky facts and/or franky conclusions.. and surely it seems that the LoyceV thread had allowed for some of that.. and I am not sure if there might be some other threads in which some of the contents of the franky posts could be allowed to stand.... but I do agree with the idea that it is against the rules to post off topic, and some deviations are allowed, so it can be a slippery slope, sometimes to figure out if something should have been "on-topic" or not.
as for debunking me.. with actual hard data of something rally hard and provable in actual code or blockdata..
i doubt it
all your chums ever do is say i been debunked by quoting another social post of a chum of yours saying i was debunked where their source is another chums saying i was debunked.. or where you think you got a win becasue of grammar mistakes
Sometimes the burden for "debunking" is on you to prove your case, and no one needs to debunk you. If you are trying to overcome the status quo, then you have the burden of convincing folks of the strength of your facts, the validity of your logic and the soundness of your conclusions, and so if you cannot reach your burdens, then the burden does not shift to the status quo to "debunk" you.
Furthermore, if you merely just continue to present the same (or very similar) facts, logic, arguments and/or conclusions over and over, that does not necessarily make your arguments stronger and it does not necessarily shift the burden over to the status quo to "debunk" your claims.
I see no debunked arguments regarding the recent NFT topic
The recent NFT topic, in which nevertheless I do correct him, isn't about debunked arguments. The fact that his posts get deleted (probably due to multiple reports) and he keeps re-posting the same text shows how childishly he behaves.
I believe that I have not seen the relevant threads on the NFT topic, and I imagine that you are referring to ordinals in terms of some of the software implementations that were run by Casey Rodarmor or whatever the recent hub bub of NFTs on bitcoin is called. So far, I am not against those or think that any kind of action needs to be taken or that it is an attack vector on bitcoin, but I see that there have been several prominent bitcoin members who have been against them.. such as Adam Back. .and maybe some others, so maybe I am thinking that Franky might be for ordinals.. I am not sure.. .. but overall I think that the topic has been raising quite a bit of disagreement about whether it is a problem and whether anything should be done or can be done in such a way that does not end up being problematic for bitcoin. .for example, if there were some kind of a software fix, that in itself might be considered an attack on bitcoin... or maybe result in a hardfork rather than a softfork.. whatever, maybe I am getting off topic, because we are supposed to be talking about how bad franky is, no?
Let me get back on topic.... Franky.. you suck.. hahahahhaha not all of the time, but a decently large amount of the time.
Accordingly, it seems to me that you also seem to have misinterpreted who was claiming who to be a dictator.. you said that the mods were dictators *such as achow..., and then some folks rebutted you by saying that they were not dictators, then you said that members were calling you a dictator.. .. whatever, seems like you were twisting and/or misinterpreting the ideas on that issue that you raised in the first place... although I can see why some folks might want to call you a dictator if you are continuing to push the same ideas over and over without really adding anything to points that you might have already been made or if you are cluttering topics with your posts and claiming that they are on topic, when they are merely repetitions of the same point over and over.. which is a kind of dictatorship through cluttering.. if there were to be such a thing that could exist?
i do so much research i hardly have time to write huge walls of text on this forum , in threads where i've been asked to cease particepation , countless times... all because they fear the power of ACTUAL RESEARCH.
Oh gawd..
aren't you the greatest thing since sliced bread.
you will not out-research me. i will research circles around you, just like franky1 does... how DARE you try to silence him? you cannot manipulate him like you do the market cap.
yep i have been researching since i was in the womb and that is why i know things that you turn a blind eye to. this is because you have no clue of the basic facts of reality... you are afraid to learn so you accuse me of derailing.
sorry but segwit was a hostile takeover. millisats don't exist.
heck not even the entire lighting network is real... it is a figmant of the blocksize gestappo's imagination. liquid makes even less sense but its still around because you all worship at the alter of your messiah adam beck.**
ofcourse he has NO CLUE about what bitcoin actually is... just put your social drama aside and go do research. then you will discover how you have been misled , and finally see the light.
yep.
millisats.
For some reason, I find this last portion of your post quite humorous.. even though I am not really sure what it means. Dummy me.
Probably I have not researched enough in order to understand the innuendos contained therein.
**By the way, based on your above spelling of "Beck," you might be getting Adam Back mixed up with Jeff Beck. They have both been famous, but largely for different reasons... #justsaying.you have not. responding does not equal debunking. you just thint fees is the only way to fix code bugs (facepalm)
What is happening is not a code bug. It's a spam attack. Ultimately, a feature.
that is not debunk.. thats me laughing at you for you not understanding that it is CODE that creates rules and code that can change broken code.
not money
There is no broken code.
bitcoin at HARD REAL data level is measured in sats on the blockchain. the immutible blockchain
Lol, I'm not even touching this subject for the billionth time.
but it is funny to see the normal "i dont remember" defence to avoid stating something of truth.. (nice try.. but not subtle enough)
Maybe I reported you once. I don't remember. You're not interesting.
Ok... maybe this helps me
(without having to "research too much") to appreciate where franky1 might stand/sit in regards to the recently frequently discussed NFT/ordinals on bitcoin topic..
