by you pandering to certain social clan buzzwords of 2017 to some bitcoiners as oppositions to bitcoin. is you trying to be a fool of those social drama clan war games where groups think that certain people should not be bitcoiners.
I doubt that I was pandering to anyone. I used words to attempt to describe what I perceive to be your framework in bitcoin, and I am not even saying that you cannot be a bitcoiner or a maximalist with your perspective of how you believe bitcoin best works for you, in terms of attempting to stick with legacy wallets and various practices in which you seem to be shunning current bitcoin developments (such as lightning network seems to be a segwit related set of practices, no?).
I don't claim to be technical, so of course, some of your technical perspectives may well inform an approach that you believe to be superior..... yet wouldn't we be deviating from this topic if we go into very much of those discussions here?
that social drama game ended, by centralising parts of the network towards one central group
(central points of failure are bad for the network)
I was around during that time, and my framing of the matter is different from yours, at least in the sense that in 2017 part of the efforts were to attack bitcoin's then governance in order to make it easier to change bitcoin.. I doubt that bitcoin has become more centralized as a response, but surely when some aspects of bitcoin were being attacked then there are likely responses and even ideas that carry into the future to attempt to cause bitcoin to be less vulnerable... and so if you are not confident in how bitcoin's governance or lack of governance is evolving, then you may well lose confidence in bitcoin, too, no?
a bitcoin maximalist cares more about not having central points of failure, rather than clan loyalisms. .
Yes.. so stop trying to suggest that I am motivated by loyalism.
by how you coment and present yourself in this forum, it seems you are a clan loyalist not a bitcoin maximalist
I disagree, but I do have some history in the ways that I present myself - and largely I try to not get caught up in certain political and/or governance arguments, even though sometimes I do come across such threads and such discussions... and yes, to bring the matter back to this thread, I recall that Rizzo was very much part of the BIG Blocker nutjobs.. but he seems to have come around.. but he still has some of the BIG blocker nutjob tendencies in terms of his seeming to suggest how bitcoiners should think about maximalism. .as if it were to be better if bitcoiners had a kind of unified front in terms of being good builders...
my mindset is clear..
i care more for the protocol than i do for the human developers that can mess with the protocol... and have! bypassed consensus for their own sponsor paid features they preferred which 5 years after 2017 are not even finished, nor multiplied utility by even 1.#x of numbers mentioned in 2010
I see no reason to go down this line of discussion unless you are somehow relating the topic to the thread. You are suggesting bitcoin to be broken in various ways since 2017, and from my perspective, I see ongoing growth in bitcoin since 2017.... and surely some of the wallets, and usages of the second layer solutions, such as the lightning network continue to be developed, too. You can choose not to get involved in using those aspects of bitcoin.. sure. there are some complications with user-friendliness and even under-the-hood technical matters that I am not going to claim to know or even consider to be directly relevant to this thread.
EG
imagine the 2017 change was not segwit. but instead a change to PoS..
That would be dumb. Fuck POS.
where the same NY agreement(DCG partners) of economic nodes decided that they will declare PoS flagged blocks as BTC and reject any PoW blocks as of august 2017
imagine blockstream(DCG) paid devs coded the mandatory fork for that period..
would you be soo willing to be loyal to the crew that enforced the activation by splitting the network
yep many of DCG businesses are regulated. so if DCG want to stay in operation and make profit and if regulators decide that they prefer PoS.. guess what could actually happen..
consensus is about: agreement =activation.
not splitting network to fake 100% vote of remainers
if another NY agreement and blockstream sponsored core code release of a preferred change happened again.. guess what would happen(ill leave you to answer that)
You are going on quite the tangent.... We had Taproot go through recently, and surely some other small changes have taken place in bitcoin's code. I don't claim to follow every change or proposal or to even understand the ramifications to each of these matters, even though from time to time, I do run across some of the various discussions of what kinds of code changes that are being proposed or some developments that might be being built here and there along the way.
you want to play buzzword games of "big blockers" but none of 2017 was about massive blocks, even the 'bloq(DCG) segwit+2mb supposed compromise was just another ploy to get segwit 2017 cludgy unfinished code activated outside of proper consensus rules
My view of how that played out is different from yours, and sure I understand the various underlying facts because I was there and I was actively involved in this forum during that time, too.
a BITCOIN maximalist cares about the bitcoin protocol. not some brand, not some dev team, not some side business/service, not some other network that some dev team want to offramp people to.. but actual UTILITY of the bitcoin network
There are a variety of ways that people can be involved in bitcoin and consider themselves to be bitcoin maximalists. They do not necessarily need to subscribe to the franky1 school of thought regarding what is a proper bitcoin maximalist, and you surely seem to be describing some kind of disgruntled historical view of bitcoin, and even if you do not like to be called a big blocker, you surely are anti-segwit - which is also part of where bitcoin currently is.. even though bitcoin's backwards compatibility allows you to have some use cases that seem to have narrow views of bitcoin that are not in touch with current practices of a lot of folks.. which to me, based on your framings in your post, it seems that you are fighting a battle about water that has already gone under the bridge.
its not about coin accumulation(just keep buying) that makes someone a maximalist. its about wanting to protect their accumulation by staying strong and calling out things that can threaten their value
Why not both? We can accumulate coins and choose to get involved in understanding whether and how our bitcoin's are protected. There are other things that we can do too, and still be involved in bitcoin and even call ourselves a bitcoin maximalist, if we so choose.
