devs can code what they like.
Quoting for posterity. Pretty sure it's the first time you've conceded that point.
but when it comes to a network that involves consensus devs should not have the ability to just trojan in new features
If they could do that, there wouldn't have been a scaling debate to begin with. People chose to run some code that you disagree with. It's as simple as that.
what should happen is nodes upgrade to include proposed validation code. and then it activates
Bitcoin has no concept of your beliefs of what "
should" or "
shouldn't" happen. And if it did happen, then consensus made it happen. You just don't understand consensus.
try to learn a few things because you have wasted 5 years on crying about your authoritarian system where you want core devs to be the deciding power house above user nodes where user nodes have no choice
You have plenty of choices:
1) Run a client which supports SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules
2) Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and continue following the current consensus rules
3) Run a client which supports SegWit and proposes a change to consensus if a given activation threshold is met, hoping that others run the same client
4) Run a client which doesn't support SegWit and proposes a change to consensus if a given activation threshold is met, hoping that others run the same client
5) Run an SPV client and have no input on consensus rules
6) Run some code you wrote yourself with whatever new consensus rules you like, to form a new network consisting of one deranged lunatic all on his own
7) Run some code you paid someone to write for you with whatever rules you like, to form a new network consisting of one deranged lunatic all on his own
8
) Run a node for a crappy fork like Bitcoin Cash, since it's clearly more closely aligned to your utterly misguided values and will have more than one lunatic for you to proliferate a chain with
9) Run into traffic, get hit by the largest possible vehicle and know that you won't be missed
What other choices would you like? Pick one and STFU.
consensus is about opt-in(vote) to activate
where lack of majority = no activation
where there is no miscount of inclusion no fork to fake majority.
We've already established that you don't understand consensus. All you have are worthless opinions which don't matter. And the worthless opinions of a hypocrite at that, because you continue to use the network and follow the consensus rules you claim are "
fake consensus". Like it or not, you're still here, so clearly it can't be as bad as you claim.
you think it means activate and have those that dont opt in just be sheep following without verifying the new rules. or already thrown off the network by showing objection
It doesn't matter what I think, that's quite literally how it works. If you try to run code which is incompatible, you won't remain synced with the network. If my node is running code that defines your node's network magic as incompatible, it will refuse to serve new blocks to you. You will then have a different version of the blockchain to Bitcoin's network and you will be forced to form a network of your own. You've witnessed it do precisely that and yet you still deny that's how it works. It happened right in front of you. But you act as though it didn't. All that's left to determine is if you're blind, stupid, or psychologically detached from reality.
you have no clue what the true blockchain and consensus inventions purpose is.
My understanding is demonstrably more sound than yours. Your own words above prove that you do not understand consensus because you can't accept what you've seen with your own eyes. Nodes don't get disconnected unless someone configures their node to disconnect certain nodes. I'll repeat again, people chose to run some code that you disagree with. Accept it and move on with your pathetic existence.
i dont care about being liked.
That much is apparent.