[self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain

[franky1]

now to summarise why this topic even started by loyce

To start: I use on-chain Bitcoin, and I use Bitcoin LN. Bitcoin can work with or without LN, LN can't work without Bitcoin. I don't like high fees, as it limits adoption. I would like to see Bitcoin grow in value, userbase and number of transactions per second, and I think we need all three of those for Bitcoin to grow. How, that's up for debate.

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

bitcoin lives on the bitcoin network. it never leaves the bitcoin network and no one can create new bitcoin on or off the bitcoin network so anything pretending to be bitcoin outside the bitcoin network is not bitcoin

database balance on a CEX is not real bitcoin
sidechain tokens/ subnetwork IOU's are not bitcoin

if it uses a different unit
EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin
if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin
if its not appearing as unconfirmed/pending on the bitcoin network peer nodes. its not bitcoin

LN is a separate network that can work with other coins.
it is not a network that only functions for and only with bitcoin

[1714280771]

1714280771

[1714280771]

1714280771

[1714280771]

1714280771

[DooMAD]

if doomad thinks bitcoin didnt have a true consensus.. then he is the idiot that does not understand bitcoin

Bitcoin has a consensus mechanism.  It does not have a "true consensus mechanism".  It cannot have such a thing because it's a phrase you made up.  It's not real.  Never has been real.  Never will be real.  Only exists in your head.  No one aside from you believes it's a thing.  And consensus still does not function as you describe.  

he loves the fact that the consensus mechanism of 2009-2016 has been broken and bypassed.

You are still the only person on the face of the planet who I've seen saying that consensus has been broken, bypassed or faked.  Literally just you.  Again, this is also a thought residing exclusively in your head and no one else's.  

where he now wants to pretend it never existed.
that bitcoin never had a consensus (solution to byzantine generals problem)

Bitcoin has always had consensus and will continue to have consensus.  I said it never had your entirely imaginary definition of consensus.  Learn to read, plz.

but thats just his and his buddies that follow his narratives SHAMEFUL, manipulative, malicious, shenanigans and ignorant mind at play

i cannot believe how malicious doomad (and his chums) rhetoric is by saying that bitcoin doesnt and never had a true consensus. .. i understand why he says it. because his favoured subnetwork doesnt have a consensus system to protect their network value.  so he is selling a narrative that systems dont have nor need consensus and pretend bitcoin never had or needed one..

Says the person completely twisting and distorting the meaning of what I wrote.  

Again, Bitcoin has consensus.  It just doesn't have the perverted, nonsensical, made-up nonsense you call "true consensus".

consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state

The current situation we find ourselves in suggests otherwise.  Soft-forks cannot be un-invented.  Argue all you like, but here we are.  If anything, it sounds as though YOU are the one saying Bitcoin doesn't have consensus.  Because YOU have stated unequivocally that non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes are not following consensus.  I believe non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes are following consensus, but are simply opted out of those features.  So stand by your own faulty logic and accept you haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about.  You can't claim I'm the one saying Bitcoin has no consensus when YOU are the one claiming consensus is "fake" and "broken" and that there are nodes on the Bitcoin network which supposedly are not following consensus.  That makes zero sense (like just about everything you've said in this entire topic).

[franky1]

You are still the only person on the face of the planet who I've seen saying that consensus has been broken, bypassed or faked.  Literally just you.  Again, this is also a thought residing exclusively in your head and no one else's.  

apart from the fact that the bitcoin devs themselves admit it was bypassed by naming and shaming Luke Jr and shoulinfry as the people that came up with the bypass to get certain features activated without the need of mass consensus before activation
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki


funny how anyone can google how it was done but you seem to refuse to do research after 5 years

heres just one example.. took me 23 seconds
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#credits
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki#credits

Special thanks to Gregory Maxwell for originating many of the ideas in this BIP and Luke-Jr for figuring out how to deploy this as a soft fork.

oh and more evidence to prove my point
how consensus WAS
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0008.mediawiki#motivation
the boefore explanation

Activation is dependent on near unanimous hashrate signalling which may be impractical and result in veto by a small minority of non-signalling hashrate.
Since all consensus rules are ultimately enforced by full nodes, eventually any new soft fork will be enforced by the economy.

after

Super majority hashrate based activation triggers allow for accelerated activation where the majority hash power enforces the new rules in lieu of full nodes upgrading.

This proposal combines these two aspects to provide optional flag day activation after a reasonable time, as well as for accelerated activation by majority of hash rate before the flag date.

then maybe you can spend some time with how they used the other bips of mandatory rejecting non-flagging blocks to fake the flag thresholds before activation. to cause a activation without need of majority nodes and without true majority of block creators

yep it took me about 50 seconds of search to find good source data from the devs. .. now show me your good source data of your assertions

[DooMAD]

You are still the only person on the face of the planet who I've seen saying that consensus has been broken, bypassed or faked.  Literally just you.  Again, this is also a thought residing exclusively in your head and no one else's.  

apart from the fact that the bitcoin devs themselves admit it was bypassed by naming and shaming Luke Jr and shoulinfry as he people that came up with the bypass to get certain features activated without the need of mass consensus before activation


funny how anyone can google how it was done but you seem to refuse to do research after 5 years

If UASF had activated, then you might have a point.  But it didn't, so you don't.

[franky1]

so flags just happened to reach unnatural 100% that triggered the mandatory activation, was just a coincidence?

oh and dont start on the USAF.. you idiot we both know it was the NYA agreement and mandatory hardfork.

dont stupidly pretend it was the other one

do you need me to show you the pretty picture graph of the flags AGAIN
or can you be capable of reminding yourself without a spoon being put in your mouth and teaching you how to digest information

..
doomad wheres your source links for your assertions.. wheres your blockdata of flags used. wheres your bips/codebases to back up your rhetoric

dont respond unless its to show links of actual code/bips or flag data in blockchain. as there is no point in hearing your empty cries for anymore time without you backing up your wet eyes and cries

enjoy the next five years of continual childisms. or hopefully take a chance on yourself do some research accept the immutable data beats your delusional thoughts. accept the data wins. and grow up and act like an adult for once

[BlackHatCoiner]

consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state

You can whine as much as you want, but what's the result? Let's assume you're right, and consensus is democracy (that's how you interpret it).

Hard forking is an inevitable part of a decentralized system, and if someone wants to hard fork, there's nothing that can stop him from do so. Soft forks, on the other hand, aren't necessarily inevitable; such forward-compatibility can only be set in stone from genesis. If it isn't, then any protocol change would result in hard fork.

Let me ask you this: if a soft fork cannot be supported with consensus as you've made clear with your definition of consensus, why did Bitcoin v0.1 had explicit support for future soft forks?

[franky1]

consensus is where nodes need to majority be ready to verify new rules BEFORE a new rule is activated so that the nodes can verify the blockchain fully. and fully agree they have all verified all data and came to the same agreed end state

You can whine as much as you want, but what's the result? Let's assume you're right, and consensus is democracy (that's how you interpret it).

Hard forking is an inevitable part of a decentralized system, and if someone wants to hard fork, there's nothing that can stop him from do so. Soft forks, on the other hand, aren't necessarily inevitable; such forward-compatibility can only be set in stone from genesis. If it isn't, then any protocol change would result in hard fork.

Let me ask you this: if a soft fork cannot be supported with consensus as you've made clear with your definition of consensus, why did Bitcoin v0.1 had explicit support for future soft forks?

by you wasting your whole post about forks. and only asking questions about forks, shows you are evading discussion about consensus or simply dont know what consensus is

consensus is a byzantine generals solution. research it. its not a split up the generals into rival armies so they can all do their own thing.
consensus is about getting the generals to agree on one marching order of unity, if there is a majority agreement of the generals(keeping the army together),. else there is no new marching order if no majority.
and they then have to come up with a new mission/policy to vote on later if they want to progress

please genuinely research the term "byzantine generals"

there is a difference between consensus and forks

forks are "fuck off" mechanisms
consensus is "stay together" mechanisms

yes people can fork and make their own altcoin. but thats making their own altcoin

consensus is about agreement of a change is accepted by a majority vote
where there is no pre activation forks. where there is no threat of rejecting blocks blackmail. its simply asking people to flag intention and if intension gets majority without threat or malice. then it activates because people are then ready to service that new rule by having upgraded to have code ready to support the new rule. thus no fork

note the words of agreement and acceptance (consent)
also note the census part, of information from the masses of a given population
yes consensus is about consent of the masses

here is the thing
i know you guys seem like the types that believe trump won 2020 due to what you read on twitter and believe because your buddies believe it

but if the US done a proper census and looked at the actual election results.. they would see the consensus proves trump lost

forks/altcoin creating. is not about being part of a countries election. its about being deported before an election or threatened that deporting will happen unless you vote a certain way. where by being deported means you are not part of an election and instead a citizen of another country

do you understand the difference between a fork vs consensus

yes segwit activated. yes taproot activated, but not via a true consensus, it activated by false election via a deportation policy before election triggered by a popularity contest of the corporations, and the lack of need to count the citizen votes

meaning lots of nodes are not supporting things like taproot right now thus lots of nodes are blindly hoarding blocks where they have not fully validated every transaction of every block

..
your view of what you think consensus is, is about splitting america up into trumpland and bidenland

where as consensus is, if there is a failure to find true majority of a fair election. there is no new leader, and a new election has to occur with maybe some other policy pledge to maybe win favour at a later date to maybe have a winner with a new policy that is part of the future for america. its not about deporting people before elections to some other land to win an election by a false election

[BlackHatCoiner]

How do you feel that nobody agrees with you? I mean, let's say you're correct for a wild moment, and that's how things should be. How do you feel that the people who're responsible for this network's well-tempered operation disagree with soft forks being "fuck off" mechanisms? What can you, individually, do about that? And you know... have an essence. Not just whining, and beating the air. 'Cause as far as I know, if people don't give a fuck for what you have to say, you either shut up, or get your fuck together elsewhere, preferably on a different network in this case. Dictating others how it is fair for a pro-freedom network to work doesn't make much sense to me.

consensus is about agreement of a change is accepted

So why isn't Segwit part of consensus? Some nodes came into this agreement, and in fact, they took into consideration that it won't fork the rest nodes off the network. They could have chosen to solve the transaction malleability problem without soft forking, backwards-compatibility and the like; just a brutal hard fork, and it would work more efficiently as well. But they thought: we can't just enforce this to everybody, nor is it appropriate to split the network in half.

yes segwit activated. yes taproot activated, but not via a true consensus, it activated by false election via a deportation policy before election triggered by a popularity contest of the corporations, and the lack of need to count the citizen votes

So how should be done, according to you? What's the "true consensus" voting system like?

[franky1]

no one IN YOUR BUDDY GROUP agrees with me. its just a shame you only see your buddy group. and you only notice people that have no fear of being frank trying to talk to your buddy group about how stupid you look. where you ignore the thousands of other people that object to your buddy group, they just avoid getting into debate with you cry babies

but your buddy group is only a dozen plus subnetwork adoring people  of a network that has no consensus or blockchain

its funny how there are thousands of posts and topics about bitcoin scaling and wanting onchain changes of extra tx per block and cheaper fee's(many people not liking the broken/empty promise of the segwit pledge /LN deportation plan of "scaling")

yet i see the same dozen idiots trying to promote the "LN solution to scaling problem"

consensus is about agreement of a change is accepted

So why isn't Segwit part of consensus?

(facepalm)
the METHOD of activating segwit into the ruleset.. was not done via consensus

consensus: consent via a mass census
it was activated by only counting trump voters

EG part of elections in america is offering new POLICY/pledge of new rule change in the future.
where if there was no true winner via a fair election trump stays in power but the policies stayed in pre election state. where no new policy is accepted.
meaning another election would need to occur if new policy were to happen
 
yes this means trump(core) still in power but not with any 2020 policy change allowed. where trump(core) continued on in old policy(ruleset(no segwit)).

but that was bypassed where trump(core) stayed in power and got to change policy, by his fake election campaign. which idiots want to call "trump won 2020"

using the analogies
bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy..

instead of how elections actually happened where if there was no clear winner. trump would have temporarily stayed in power but without new policy. where a new election would soon occur to offer new policy

Some nodes came into this agreement, and in fact, they took into consideration that it won't fork the rest nodes off the network. They could have chosen to solve the transaction malleability problem without soft forking, backwards-compatibility and the like;

yes NYA corporate votes were counted
yes they changed election rules that normal citizens dont vote(backward compatibility to just keep trump in power without a vote)


funny part is.. the blockchain data and actually using your eyes.. there was a hard fork.. its called BCH(yes it happened)
there were block rejections to falsify a 100% (un-natural to get full 100% by the way)

they instead changed the voters rights(backward compatible) and just didnt count or involve all citizens in the vote where abstaining was treated as voting for trump2020 policy

just a brutal hard fork, and it would work more efficiently as well. But they thought: we can't just enforce this to everybody, nor is it appropriate to split the network in half.

no
in real consensus there just be no policy change. thus no fork due to an election

please go learn the difference between consensus vs forking
learn the solution to the byzantine generals problem.. it will clear up your many misunderstandings

it will help you realise why bitcoin was such a novel solution to many things in 2009-2016

..
you you and your daddy doomad stop reptending segwit was soft. it was hard as proven by there being a hard fork
and stop pretending that i am saying that segwit activated via soft (uasf) becasue again i am and never have said that segwit was soft

there was a fork, controversy and rejections and then election bypass to activate new policy

stop trying to think segwit was peaceful kumbaya unanimous agreement

[BlackHatCoiner]

no one IN YOUR BUDDY GROUP agrees with me.

Correct, if by "my budding group" you mean the legitimate Bitcoin users.

where you ignore the thousands of other people that object to your buddy group, they just avoid getting into debate with you cry babies

Sorry that I have to spoil that to you, but whenever I've avoided a debate with you, it's because it's unbelievably tiring to talk with someone who barely knows his mother tongue.

bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy..

That's the problem. You think Bitcoin is democratic. It fundamentally isn't. Consensus isn't democracy. If Bitcoin was democratic, there wouldn't be a Bitcoin Cash, because it was rejected by majority. But there is, because there were a few users who had formed consensus on running that. In 2017, some users had had intentions to switch to SegWit. Some others didn't. The former group decided that the latter could still be part of the network with their consent if they want.

That's how things were done, in reality. Not in this stupid, fantastic, utopian world where you live in-- which I'm sure it isn't the UK. Even school dropouts know English better.

[LoyceV]

how to handle this colossal man-baby and his ceaseless tantrums.

he is the idiot that does not understand bitcoin
~
YOU idiots want to say that nodes with:
~
yet you IDIOTS what to have this stupid diluted insecure mashup

Reminder:

Rules Guidelines:
Please keep this topic civil.

Take a breath

forks are "fuck off" mechanisms
consensus is "stay together" mechanisms

I like this (not so subtle) explanation

bitcoin lives on the bitcoin network. it never leaves the bitcoin network and no one can create new bitcoin on or off the bitcoin network so anything pretending to be bitcoin outside the bitcoin network is not bitcoin

One could argue Bitcoin LN doesn't leave the Bitcoin network, it just doesn't move on-chain when it's moved in LN.

if it uses a different unit
EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin

I have a broker account that uses fractions of cents internally. Does that mean it's not in euro? Or maybe it's not euros because it's not printed on paper banknotes, but only numbers on a centralized computer. I think most people consider it to be euros, because for all practical purposes it acts the same, even though it isn't printed on "original" banknotes.

if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin

For me, the fact that it's guaranteed to be possible to get it on-chain is enough to trust LN and consider it to be Bitcoin. I get that we disagree, and I'm okay with that.

[franky1]

if it uses a different unit
EG a token of 11 decimals. its not bitcoin

I have a broker account that uses fractions of cents internally. Does that mean it's not in euro? Or maybe it's not euros because it's not printed on paper banknotes, but only numbers on a centralized computer. I think most people consider it to be euros, because for all practical purposes it acts the same, even though it isn't printed on "original" banknotes.

the function of your micro eurocent has a different purpose to a metal eurocents you find in your jacket pocket

if that database of microeurocents has:
*some guarantee that your broker cant just do an FTX on your balance..
*recognised by your countries regulators that your deposits are insured
*no way for broker to get away with stealing your microeuro
*where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures

then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU)

however much like:
#not-your-key-not-your-coin(counterparty refuse to sign multisig)
much like fractional reserving(thor turboing)
much like sidechain/subnetwork de-begging(change 1:1000 peg)

there are more flaws to your brokers system than an actual euro

LN msats have many many ways to break the peg. and also many ways your channel counter-part can attack your value and abuse the "trust" of the contract you have agreed on via funding tx signing it into their co-control
if you are not away or wish to be blind to the differences.. thats on YOU

[franky1]

if its not appearing as a confirmed bitcoin UTXO when you feel that you have been "paid" its not bitcoin

For me, the fact that it's guaranteed to be possible to get it on-chain is enough to trust LN and consider it to be Bitcoin. I get that we disagree, and I'm okay with that.

when you broadcast to settle..
i hope you atleast are not watching TXID of a broadcast with your node having RBF turned off.. where you only see a unconfirmed tx of "first seen"

your counter party may have RBF on and later sends a previous commitment with higher fee.
which pools accept as replacement of the one in your mempool.. thus your waiting weeks thinking your 'first-seen' is waiting/pending a confirm to settle
where as your counterparties other broadcast gets confirmed..

so i hope you lot atleast have RBF turned on to watch for double spends at unconfirmed relay and you lot are watching via UTXO of funding commit.. rather than TXID

[franky1]

as for blackhat running out of rebuttles so just goes grammar nazi

english is a beautiful language
there is no single way to speak

tom8o tom@o
phone, dog and bone

scone: s-con  sc-own, biscuit(american english)

if you go to glasgow, then liverpool, then manchester, then essex, then cornwall. you might notice the beauty of the language

this forum is not a oxford university for getting a degree in english

its a discussion forum where people have their own dialects.
and yes there are many versions of english outside of oxford

by the way americans call football. that game of holding a ball.. and call what brits call football soccer

yes we hate the football, tom8o diversity of the english language. but if you cannot accept diversity or atleast the diversity of language. thats on your narrow mindedness.

im not here to earn an oxford university degree.
this forum is not here to offer oxford degree's
this forum is open to diversity and open discussion

my english is understandable by those that are not narrow minded.
i was born british. as were my parents and their parents and theirs, for as far back as i have measured the 1700's

however angelo.. you are greek. so its you with the english deficit.

im here to discuss bitcoin. and i end up having to put up with narrow minded people like yourself that cannot understand the broad range and beauty of the english language
and i am 100% sure if i spoke cockney to you or mancunian you would collapse in tears thinking your translator is broke

you call yourself a bitcoiner?
A. you want people to stop doing transactions on bitcoin daily by advertising another network
B. you advertise fullnodes should not be full nodes by saying people should prun
C. more precisely you dont want a distributed ledger
D. you dont like the blockchain. specifically the taint proof of coin origins

you do not like much about bitcoin at all
first of all thank you for admitting one thing..
you admit the "few users" "some users" also known as the blockstream DCG group of the NYA economic nodes

however
you think when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of the wider community. you think they never had a vote(even before 2016).
 
again you also think democracy is about ability to fork
its not
democracy is about unity of the community. by majority vote
consensus/democracy is about coming to a majority elected policy which unites the masses, where if there is no clear majority the new policy does not activate.

that process was brutalised in 2016-17 by the ADMITTED changes proposed by luke Jr and shoulinfry

the devs admit it happened.. and its you guys that think you are defending and kissing devs ass by pretending it didnt happen

democracy is not where Jeremy Corbyn managed northern england and Boris Johnson managed southern england
democracy is not where kier starmer manages northern england and rishi manages southern england

there is no split up of england in true democracy
there is simply re-elections if no clear majority is found

and one last shut-down of another misconception you have
"bitcoin LN" brand stealing

lightning network is not reliant on bitcoin nor sole function for bitcoin and bitcoin alone

even J.Poone (DCG related)
who wrote the white paper on lightning said this
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Cross-Chain Payments. So long as there are similar hash-functions
across chains, it’s possible for transactions to be routed over multi-
ple chains with different consensus rules. The sender does not have
to trust or even know about the other chains – even the destination
chain. Simiarly, the receiver does not have to know anything about
the sender’s chain or any other chain.

also when running a compiled LN wallet/node. you do not have to go back to base code and change parameters. to make it operate with other networks. its simply an input you enter into the compiled and running node/wallet. thus LN is not something thats hard coded for bitcoin/reliant on bitcoin

[BlackHatCoiner]

LN msats have many many ways to break the peg.

Can you name a few of these "many many ways"? I only know one: your partner closes the channel, and you lose (outgoing capacity mod 1000) msats.

as for blackhat running out of rebuttles so just goes grammar nazi

Just in case you skipped it:

bitcoin is now living in a trumpland 2020 where trump stayed in power AND changed the policy.. by evading democracy..

That's the problem. You think Bitcoin is democratic. It fundamentally isn't. Consensus isn't democracy. If Bitcoin was democratic, there wouldn't be a Bitcoin Cash, because it was rejected by majority. But there is, because there were a few users who had formed consensus on running that. In 2017, some users had had intentions to switch to SegWit. Some others didn't. The former group decided that the latter could still be part of the network with their consent if they want.

english is a beautiful language

If only I could say the same about your writing.

[LoyceV]

*where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures

Nope, the microeuros will never show up on my bank account, and I can't withdraw them. Anything less than a cent can't be cash, and even cents have been "rounded" to 5 cents minimum for years in my country.

then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU)

It's more like I don't care about the microeuros, just like I don't care about the microsatoshis. For internal calculations it's okay, for practical purposes it's dust.

[franky1]

*where all microeuros convert to euros no matter what situation occures

Nope, the microeuros will never show up on my bank account, and I can't withdraw them. Anything less than a cent can't be cash, and even cents have been "rounded" to 5 cents minimum for years in my country.

then YOU may presume the microeuro to be a euro.. (emphasis on YOU)

It's more like I don't care about the microeuros, just like I don't care about the microsatoshis. For internal calculations it's okay, for practical purposes it's dust.

then we both agree msats are not bitcoin

however here is the thing
imagine your broker trade desk screen showed you had 500,000microcents
internally you think your broker owes you 500cents (5 euros)

now what if i told you that the rules of your broker software(he asked you to download) meant that he can manipulate your user agreement of the 1:1000 conversion rate.

where by he can get the software to sign a 1:10,000,000
meaning your 500,000microcents trade desk screen balance.. is actually being signed into withdraw request order. of not 5 euros.. but not even 1 cent.. but instead 0.05

yep be aware that LN has no network consensus, no network audit of payments or channel law.
no mechanism to prevent changes to pegs. thus you can think your IOU is 5 euros as displayed on trading desk GUI. but at withdrawal of the settlement broadcast. you only get euro0.0005

yep the pegging mechanism between the onion payment unit vs commitment unit. is not a guaranteed secure rate

[DooMAD]

oh and dont start on the USAF.. you idiot we both know it was the NYA agreement and mandatory hardfork.

dont stupidly pretend it was the other one

Dafuq now?  *squints in confusion*

To the wider audience, is there a polite way to question if someone is illiterate without it being an insult?  I'm genuinely curious.  Did anyone else interpret my previous post as suggesting that UASF had activated?  He called out shaolinfry by name (or at least tried to), so I assumed he was referring to UASF.  So I stated that if it had activated then he might have a point.  I never claimed it did activate.  I can't fathom how one person can invoke so many misunderstandings in a single exchange of ideas.  

My point was, UASF is the closest Bitcoin has ever come to a breakdown of the consensus mechanism, but it never gained significant traction to do any damage.  Aside from that near-miss and one or two technical errors which were before my time here, Bitcoin has always maintained consensus.


And to address franky1 directly, we've been through this before.  NYA was as much of a failure as UASF.  NYA didn't activate shit, so you are incorrect in your assertion that "we both know".  Unlike you, I can't "know" things that never happened.  That's your talent.

And I know you're eager to move on from the part where you stated it's "shameful" for someone to say Bitcoin doesn't have a consensus mechanism right after you had just finished saying that consensus in Bitcoin is "broken"/"fake"/"bypassed"/etc and that non-SegWit and non-Taproot nodes supposedly aren't following consensus, but I think I'll dwell on it a little longer.  Even by your standards, that's a pretty spectacular own-goal.  Not to mention technobabble of the highest magnitude.

Now, instead of responding in your typical belligerent fashion, I would strongly recommend you take this opportunity to be reasonable because you're reaching a point of no return.  You seriously need to take a moment to consider issuing a retraction for your comments and attempting to state your position in something more akin to a logically sound manner.  We fully accept that you personally disapprove of opt-in, backwards-compatible features.  You don't need to convince us any further of that.  We get it.  However, what you do need to convince us of is that you are not so blinded by your biases that you can no longer tell fact from fiction.  It is clearly not correct or accurate to say that there are nodes active on the Bitcoin network right now which are not following consensus.  Such a thing is impossible.  You can't just go around spouting nonsense like that and expect us to let it slide.  I'm giving you one last chance to start making sense.  But if you continue down this route of saying some nodes aren't following consensus and yet they magically remain on the network, I guarantee you those words will haunt you.  I will bring them up at every available opportunity to discredit any argument you make on any technical subject because it proves you have zero understanding of even the most basic aspects of Bitcoin.  Everything is archived so you can't just go back and edit it.  Consider your next words carefully.

[franky1]

it looks like we need to show doomad a pretty picture
AGAIN

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

the blue line of NYA (blackmail and threat of block rejections). caused the sudden diagonal red line of segwit which caused the activation

the diagonal red line event was the reject of non signalling blocks where every new block from that trigger point late july was then signalling segwit which diluted the count of previous non signals ... hence the line went STRAIGHT(no wiggle) diagonally to 100% where 100% is not natural


by the way. those tactics that were used were not described by me as SOFT. becasue they actually were HARD but FALSLY described as soft by other people.
which even you want to call it soft because of your ignorance of what actually happened

also the UASF was a different proposal promoted by samson mow not the same as the lukejr and shoulinfry stuff which the core devs and blockstream NYA group utilised

so dont try confusing people

what you are missing in your ignorance is that the 2x part of NYA was never a coded thing or a bip. it was the empty promise of "sometime later"
and its the 2x that failed. not the blackmail of block rejections first part of the NYA which was actually pushed


if you cannot tell the difference between the code and bips.. vs whats is promoted and said in a blog. then you again are not realising the actual stuff that actually happened

it seems apparent now your source of information has fooled you.

but if you want to continue pretending you know better..
BACK IT UP WITH ACTUAL DATA

show me some actual lines of code, some bips, some block data. .. something

.. im still waiting

all you can produce is your mindset of stuff you read on some blog post or tweet or some chat room somewhere

[DooMAD]

For someone so utterly incapable of accepting the consequences of their choices, I'd have thought you'd make a smarter one.  So be it.