Ban request for user: franky1

[DooMAD]

Rather than continue to derail the Ordinals topic, this is going here:

learn about consensus.

It is clearly you who does not understand consensus, because you keep telling us how it "should" word instead of how it does work.

You can repeat your idiot catchphrase as much as you like.  I'm not learning your make-believe version of consensus because it doesn't exist.  You imagine that just because some previous fork proposals were hardforks with a 95% activation threshold that it means all future ones have to be the same.  There's no rule which makes that so and there's no way you can enforce such a rule (despite your abundantly clear desire that were the case). 

telling people to shut up and go away.

Come up with a better argument.  You've been repeating the same shit non-stop for years and it's getting old.  People will naturally tell you to shut up and go away if you keep repeating yourself when no one gives a shit about the totalitarian nightmare-fuel you're trying to sell them.

YOUR MAIN MISSION is censorship

Says the ego-maniacal asshat who wants to tell devs what they can and can't code.   

Yes or no, would you censor softforks if you could? 

If you want efficiency, run a centralised database.
If you want people to only use blockchains for things you personally approve of, run a project with gatekeepers.
If you want to tell people what can or can't be coded, start a closed-source project.

Those are all things you claim you want, but you won't find any of that shit in Bitcoin, so please enlighten us as to what the fuck it is you're even doing here when you hate literally everything about it.  What's wrong with your brain?  You utterly despise every single part of Bitcoin and yet you pretend you're its biggest fan while you come up with absurd ideas to destroy everything that makes it great.  Nothing about your continued presence here makes any sense whatsoever.  Telling you to go away is quite literally the best advice anyone could possibly offer you.  What you want is not Bitcoin.  It's not even fucking close.

You don't get to unilaterally declare what is or isn't an acceptable activation threshold for a fork. 
You don't get to unilaterally declare softforks aren't a valid method of activation.
You don't get to unilaterally declare what devs are permitted or not permitted to code.

None of your deluded and arbitrary declarations are remotely connected to consensus or how it works.  If you think otherwise, you're in the wrong place.

[1714212625]

1714212625

[1714212625]

1714212625

[1714212625]

1714212625

[1714212625]

1714212625

[1714212625]

1714212625

[franky1]

you debunked yourself by admitting hard consensus did exist and has been softened

You imagine that just because some previous fork proposals were hardforks with a 95% activation threshold that it means all future ones have to be the same.  

but hey if youdont want full nodes to be compliant to a ruleset at a 95%+ security level.. that just shows how you prefer less nodes % securing the network

which is more evidence of your lack of wanting bitcoin to be secure

as for your "franky is totalitarian" "franky is irrelevant" paradox.. pick one and stick with it

as for totalitarian ego
note who in this topic of censoring a user.. who is censoring who
note your own comments of you telling people to shut up. note how you love getting peoples posts deleted and how you want people that dont agree with your preferences should f**k off

as for "If you want people to only use blockchains for things you personally approve of, run a project with gatekeepers."

your the guy that only wants core to code bitcoin with features only they want to see.
you cannot see the difference between core vs bitcoin because you can only see core IS bitcoin. and anyone outside of core ideational as non bitcoiners

 you have been part of many REKT campaigns and anyone that wants to even propose something that is not part of the core roadmap you fight them.

its YOU that loves that core have gatekeepers and you think thats how all projects should be, becasue you are suggesting thats how i should also do it because its the only narrow vision method you can think of

[DooMAD]

you debunked yourself by admitting hard consensus did exist and has been softened

Wrong.  You want to paint the facade that things like softforks and blockheight activations are somehow immoral and you act as though all forks prior to SegWit were miner-activated hardforks with 95%+ consensus.  This is simply untrue.  I could waste time searching for examples, but you're the one who loves research, so feel free to double check.  Bitcoin has used blockheight activations and softforks prior to SegWit.  It is not inaccurate for me to point out that some fork proposals were MAHF 95%+ activation, but you are entirely wrong to pretend they all were.

as for your "franky is totalitarian" "franky is irrelevant" paradox.. pick one and stick with it

There is no paradox.  If you held any influence, you would use that influence to make authoritarian decisions that would restrict freedom and harm Bitcoin.  If you somehow managed to successfully emulate history's renowned dictators, you would be dangerous.  Luckily, most of your arguments are pathetic and unconvincing.  People aren't rallying to your misguided cause.  They aren't drinking your Kool-Aid.  My goal is simply to continue dismantling all your absurd arguments and ensure you never hold any influence.  I work to ensure you remain irrelevant.

Ergo, you are an irrelevant totalitarian.  Both apply equally.


//EDIT:

you if you lived 200 years ago. would have been a slave owner.

Says the asshat attempting to enslave Devs.  If I really wanted a dev to code something, I'd offer to pay them for their services.  But that's unacceptable for fascistfranky1.  He demands servitude with no recompense. 

[franky1]

strange thing is. its you that makes most demands. you even want to control when where and how people post. you want to control their use of language. you say no one has to give consent to your ideals and you want core to do anything they like where users cannot refuse to be recipients of illegal content

core can do anything they like in their github. but when it comes to the (note: separate) activated ruleset of bitcoin network. core should not have trojan god mode control to do as they please
your main problem is that you do not see the difference between the bitcoin network. and cores github. you are the one that thinks core should be a central point of failure for the bitcoin network. and you enjoy that risk remaining

you if you lived 200 years ago. would have been a slave owner. all you care about is making money from the abuse of slaves. and you dont care what harm it causes, as long as you side with the "lawmakers"(core) you will continue to want to abuse others to get your way

and thats why you dont want core to lose their political position, and replaced with actual level playing vield of multiple brands of implementations that can all do their own proposals where users unite on a common interest via hard consensus

[Jet Cash]

He used to stalk me, but I've had him on ignore for a few years now. So I won't see replies to this post (if any) should he decide to respond.

[BlackHatCoiner]

your main problem is that you do not see the difference between the bitcoin network. and cores github. you are the one that thinks core should be a central point of failure for the bitcoin network. and you enjoy that risk remaining

I can't seem how he enjoys that view. I don't even think he's ever said that Core should be the network's central point of failure, which should take the entire network on their backs. All he says is simple, yet hard for you to comprehend: developers are free to code whatever they wish. Any developer, no exceptions. Just hit a pull request, and discuss it with the rest of the team. It's you who doesn't like freedom in coding, and want to enforce your view upon the rest, even if you aren't convincing enough. You think that for the most pro-freedom money protocol in existence, enforcing your view for the common good (which I agree you think it's correct) is more important than retaining its freedom. Irresponsible and arrogant.

[tread93]

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.

Countless of times his posts are getting deleted after been reported. Still, he has an account here and is allowed to act same like without any penalties. However, those who do want to constructively prove him wrong are being punished by having their posts deleted and thus discouraged to stop his future FUD.

I address to the moderating team and request a ban, whether that's temporary or permanent. I also address to those who have been part in discussions with him and are annoyed by this uncontrolled abuse of the forum's free speech as he's infringing the rules:

Q: Do you moderate/delete (possible) FUD, accusations and untrue information?
A: No. We don't have enough time to check every single piece of information and verify the validity of the sources. Also, just like scams - too much room for bias and abuse.

However, trolling isn't allowed. If a user is habitually posting obviously false nonsense ("obviously false nonsense" to an outsider, NOT to someone who follows or is involved in the discussion) just to stir up trouble, then it's considered trolling, which is prohibited. Such cases should be thoroughly documented in the report though (There are tons of reports that just say "trolling", but moderators don't have time to look through each user's post).

It's down to you to support my statement that what he does is trolling.


[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

This dude has spent over a year of his life in logged in time on this forum,  an absolute fking legend in my book hahahha. Good or bad you have got to give it to him, this dude is FRANK with everyone and completely righteous in his own mind. He could very well be the best party that he's ever been to hehehhe. IMO everyone is entitles to TOO (Their Own Opinion)

[BlackHatCoiner]

If franky1 is frank, then I'm a blackhat.

[FatFork]

If franky1 is frank, then I'm a blackhat.

So, does that mean I'm "fat"? No. I resent that. 

[franky1]

If franky1 is frank, then I'm a blackhat.

angelo.. seeing as you have retired from scrap metal trading.. when i think of you this is what i see


reference is a tv show called steptoe and son about a poor old guy in the scrap business.. oh he wears a black hat

[DooMAD]

If we're not going to ban this disruptive lunatic, can we at least quarantine him in the Altcoins sub?  He clearly wants a version of Bitcoin that doesn't include SegWit or Taproot.  That's something he could easily have, but it definitely sounds like one of those cheap knockoff forkcoins to me.  Given that posts about Altcoins belong in the Altcoins section, surely any posts franky1 makes in a Bitcoin-specific part of the forum requesting the removal of SegWit or Taproot would therefore be off-topic.

He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit.  It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum.  SegWit was activated in 2017.  It's now 2023.  During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't.

[LeGaulois]

Great democracy...

It makes me think about politics when conservatives are being blamed by the wokes  

I'm joking but there is a bit of truth in it.

[Jet Cash]

I'm surprised that this thread is still running. I bet "not so" Frankly is loving the publicity.

ps. Don't forget the ignore button guys.

[franky1]

He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit.  It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum.  SegWit was activated in 2017.  It's now 2023.  During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't.

segwit 2017 its 2023.. =6 years

bitcoin 2009 its 2023 =14 years
14-6 =8

8 years without segwit 6 years with it
segwit has not been part of the protocol for longer than it hasnt
but its funny how you want to make me the variable to mess the math up to pretend that segwit has been part of bitcoin for longer.. you keep doing that using weird things to pretend that exploitable problems have always existed in bitcoin for longer then they actually have

plus many bitcoiners are seeing the exploits caused by "consensus cleanup" changes of the last 6 years
yep the "anyonecanspend" treatment of non standard transactions to bypass validation checks has been seen time and time again to cause issues.

this debate of the softening of consensus is an ongoing issue causing more problems than benefits.

as for wanting to censor me into the altcoin sub.. funny part is its YOU that wants people to stop using bitcoin and use other networks. im the one highlighting when bitcoin gets exploited, rules changed for the worse and wanting bitcoin to be fixed and evolve.
you dont want bitcoin to scale you want other networks to be the promises of scaling pretending other networks are "bitcoin"
you are the altcoiner. and you are the one trying to "censor" people the most.
telling peole that they should not use bitcoin for $2-$20 amounts because you dont want to see 11% of the worlds unbanked people using bitcoin(your no western coffee/pizza censorship mantra, translates to no weekly wage for unbanked censorship)

yep you dont want people to discuss topics.. you dont want fixes to exploits
you want bitcoin politics centralised(core authority), you want bitcoin to break(rule bypasses), you want less decentralised blockdata(pruned), you want bitcoin to be too expensive for normal use(fee market)
you want to make people stop using bitcoin due to exploits or fee mania

you dont care about bitcoin at all. as long as you can scrape together a few pennys promoting scammy crap you are happy. all you care about is scamming value out of people(theft of channel balance) and also leaving other people with your dirty coin taint(mixer) while you leave them handling all of troubles you dont want prevented, fixed, removed

[JayJuanGee]

He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit.  It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum.  SegWit was activated in 2017.  It's now 2023.  During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't.

segwit 2017 its 2023.. =6 years

bitcoin 2009 its 2023 =14 years
14-6 =8

8 years without segwit 6 years with it
segwit has not been part of the protocol for longer than it hasnt

Even though technically you seem to be right that non-segwit existed longer than segwit bitcoin, yet many of us should realize and appreciate that not all years (in bitcoinlandia) are created equal...

If you had not noticed, segwit was passed through consensus in about August 2017 and then thereafter implemented within a month or so thereafter.. and then thereafter people have been building upon bitcoin based upon the fact that segwit is a part of bitcoin's options... so a lot of ongoing building going on and that building in bitcoin has a lot of segwit in various parts of bitcoin.

Accordingly, it seems to me that it would be quite difficult to reverse segwit - including the need to get people (or do we say nodes?) that need to agree since anyone can introduce new code or old code that reverses segwit (and then run that non-segwit code) and there are some blockchains that exist that are bitcoin-like that you can participate in that seem to already be living in an anti-segwit existence, no:.. at least BCH and BSV, right?

Good luck with getting anyone to run your non-segwit code..

Maybe you will create a version of bitcoin (or find one that already exists) that is better than BCH/BSV, or are you whining because other shitcoins have tried to create "better versions of bitcoin" (to the extent that they are genuine beyond the mere goals of printing money for themselves and their insiders) and they have all failed, so far..

Maybe you are going to find/develop/create a non-segwit version of bitcoin that everyone wants to run (and everyone wants to switch over to the lovely and better version that you had created)....and then become the new bitcoin?  

For some reason, it seems that the ship of taking segwit out of bitcoin has sailed.. but you ongoingly seem to want to just get your way to get segwit to be reversed (taken out of bitcoin), without even getting people to change their mind and to actually support your new and improved (non-segwit) version of bitcoin.. Even if there are problems with bitcoin as it currently exists, and with segwit, then aren't we still in a system that exists and segwit cannot just be taken out of bitcoin.. wouldn't that cause more troubles for bitcoin, rather than solutions?

this debate of the softening of consensus is an ongoing issue causing more problems than benefits.

I guess that I don't sufficiently understand what you are saying enough.. since I had thought that it is more and more difficult to get things to pass in bitcoin these days as compared to the past.. .. even though maybe you are referring to taproot and some of those related matters passing... but what do I know?  

I should probably just leave you two love birds to squabble over some of these kinds of technical implementation matters.. and yes, I see that you (franky) claim to ongoingly raising alarms in the bitcoin space regarding the so many supposed problems with current days bitcoin, and characterizing that no one else is doing that, and you are potentially contributing through your ongoing complaints.. .. but at the same time, your framing of how you are blaming current days bitcoin for a large variety of supposed problems that people are having frequently is way too muchie confusing para mi.

Many times there are going to be technical issues in regards to adoption of anything, whether we are referring to bitcoin or anything else, but if we are trying to be honest and open in our assessment, we likely need to attempt to weigh a variety of factors that involve considering if bitcoin continues to give more options to normies or not.. and as normies ourselves, we likely need to attempt to decide upon which of the bitcoin tools that we want to run and how we might run them in terms of hopefully adding benefits to ourselves that might deal both with transactions and wealth preservation.

[DooMAD]

He's still derailing topics to whine about SegWit.  It was 2012 when franky1 joined this forum.  SegWit was activated in 2017.  It's now 2023.  During the time franky1 has been part of the Bitcoin community, SegWit has been part of the Bitcoin protocol for longer than it hasn't.

segwit 2017 its 2023.. =6 years

bitcoin 2009 its 2023 =14 years
14-6 =8

8 years without segwit 6 years with it
segwit has not been part of the protocol for longer than it hasnt

I said "since you joined the community", you illiterate bellend.  One day you'll learn to read, but I won't hold my breath.

[Jet Cash]

Bring back Tman. It was much more fun talking about him, than talking about not-so-Franky.