On Ordinals: Where do you stand?

[be.open]

(If you're a badass hacker, fuck binance and withdraw 100,000 bitcoins to your local wallet, you won't be able to spend it

According to who? There may be a few pool owners who'll reject it after a phone call from the Chinese guy, but there is no way to prevent all pool owners to reject it; unless of course the top pools cooperate to continuously reorg the chain for an indefinite time, until CZ gets his money back. That, however, would be a self-destructive move, as Bitcoin would no longer have the same value.

I double-checked this information and it seems to be erroneous, in bitcoin everything is not so bad with censorship resistance. Of course, there is a fairly high probability that the stolen funds will be traced, and you will be deanonymized and arrested, but it seems that you can put your transaction in the mempool and not fall under the "shadowban", and so be it in the future. Sorry.

ps This does not change what I said in the previous post, just a bad example.

[1714505583]

1714505583

[franky1]

if you make your website look official enough people might start downloading your version of core and before you know it, everyone is rejecting monkeys. what do you think?

You're wasting your time. He's not going to do the obvious, because he's a lazy narcissist. He only knows to blame people for not agreeing with him, as he thinks he is the gatekeeper of truth; the breathing true consensus.

lazy.. hah.. i bet i travelled more in the last 3 days then you have in your lifetime
i have learned more about bitcoin then you ever have. i have done more bitcoin stuff then you and earned more bitcoin then you. heck i have even wrote more bitcoin code then you.
the thing is just because i keep my personal life separate from this forum does not mean im lazy. it means im smarter then you angelo

funny part is you have yet to learn the basics.. you pretend to call yourself a bitcoin tech support on social media but even this year you are still asking the most basic things about bitcoin and getting the same wrong answers from your social club

you should stop less time with the lies and ignorance and spend more time learning. i dont care about if you learn from me or not. just learn from actual hard blockdata, code and who is changing the code and removing certain checks and limits that did exist

your forum wife keeps wanting to tell you bitcoin always had problems blockchains dont work stop storing blockdata dont use bitcoin blah blah blah but he is not a bitcoiner he hates bitcoin he loves other networks and is trying to recruit others to his other network whilst sucking up to the devs that want to scramble bitcoin into an unfit network

you keep saying bitcoin will be for only micro payments. and the in same breath say bitcoin is unfit for micropayments and bitcoin should not be used for payments upto pizza amounts.. well you are just repeating a script. its not even your own thoughts independently thought up by you. you are not original nor even thinking beyond the script. you just recite it without a care in the world. and yes larry is joining that same echo so goodluck to him too..

however there are many many topics of thousands of people wanting to talk about bitcoin and fixing and scaling BITCOIN so if you only want to say "dont fix bitcoin and f**k off to another network" well you take the first move and just go play with your prefered network

however many other people want to discuss bitcoin issues and methods to sort things out and the impedances that make it not so easy to do. and how to solve those impedances along the way.

i know you want to pretend alot of things and ignore block data and code. but with all your diatribe of promotions to recruit people into your little clubhouse of echos, you do not actually ever bother to look at the technical aspects.. you just rely on being spoonfed by your forum wife to tell you what to say

try for once to learn bitcoin outside your echo chamber and then come up with an original thought that sounds nothing like something doomad would say.. for your own good

when i say to people DYOR meaning do your own research
you cry about me asking people to do their research, but then jump back to wanting to be spoonfed the answers without any effort on your own part to learn the stuff.. you forget the emphasis is and has been do YOUR OWN research.

[larry_vw_1955]

lazy.. hah.. i bet i travelled more in the last 3 days then you have in your lifetime
i have learned more about bitcoin then you ever have. i have done more bitcoin stuff then you and earned more bitcoin then you. heck i have even wrote more bitcoin code then you.

your technical knowlegdge of how bitcoin works franky is pretty next level. there's no doubt about that. you know bitcoin like the back of your hand. so why not do as i suggested and become part of the solution rather than complaining. you probably have the ability to release a modified bitcoin core and advertise it to the world as the real bitcoin. you just need to come up with a nice domain name that makes people think it's the real bitcoin. they might never even find out about bitcoin.org and if you worded your website carefully, you could mention briefly how you stamped out monkeys from taking over the blockchain just because. that way people would think "hey this is a really cool guy".
 

when i say to people DYOR meaning do your own research
you cry about me asking people to do their research, but then jump back to wanting to be spoonfed the answers without any effort on your own part to learn the stuff.. you forget the emphasis is and has been do YOUR OWN research.

from my research, i know that people get bitcoin core from bitcoin.org. so bitcoin is centralized to bitcoin.org. that's how they keep control over things. but if you made your own bitcoin website you could release your own version of core franky. one without the monkeys. you would need to heavily advertise the site so get ready to pull out your wallet for google ads.  

You're wasting your time. He's not going to do the obvious, because he's a lazy narcissist. He only knows to blame people for not agreeing with him, as he thinks he is the gatekeeper of truth; the breathing true consensus.

franky, are you going to let people call you out like this? or are you going to take action and come up with a solution to this problem?

[franky1]

larry .. ur missing the point

others already have released code. but people dont adopt it because "its not core"*
others have tried to propose such code TO core and got it rejected

others with names that are clearly known in the github community

take luke JR for instance

*when it comes to other repos people want certain dev group to have reviewed the code for them and sign off the code is clean, which ends up as a human trusting human issue because people dont want to review thousands of lines of code themselves

core gained defacto god trust so people stopped caring about independent review or risking other brands not maintained by core god-mode

even the core-gods have cried that other brands are bad because they(core-gods) dont have time to review other people brands to sign them off as clean

their fanbase REKT other brands even ones made by known github personalities..

even though luke Jr is a occasional contributor and previous core maintainer, people now treat even him as an outsider
 heck in the past there were nodes wrote by an ex lead maintainer that wanted to upgrade the network without causing a fork(altcoin) and he got REKT into being told to make an altcoin and leave core to control bitcoin rules

heck we already had doomad call me an authoritarian and an opposition and i have not even publicly released code to the masses

thats how bad the centralisation/control has got.
the solution is not to have outsides trying to get loyalty

its to get the masses to get core to be more open

and one final point. this is a discussion forum. you wanting me to just shut up and fork off is not even an original thought made by you.. heck you are doing the same games.. "make a website and pretend its bitcoin"
subtly doing the hints that anything not core is not bitcoin but a "pretend"

so the code solutions are out there already.. but it requires the masses to not treat core as god for other brands/patches to even get adopted.. or for core themselves to open up and come down a peg or two to be willing to accept adjustments not made by the top 5 maintainers.

[nutildah]

but it requires the masses to not treat core as god for other brands/patches to even get adopted..

Literally nobody here is doing that. Nobody is fixated on them as much as you are.

or for core themselves to open up and come down a peg or two to be willing to accept adjustments not made by the top 5 maintainers.

Given how often you bungle the most mundane of technical details, I have far more trust in the abilities of those "5 maintainers" than I do in you, but of course way more people actually contribute to Core than you would like us to believe.

24.1 Release Notes

Bitcoin Core version 24.1 is now available from:

https://bitcoincore.org/bin/bitcoin-core-24.1/

This release includes various bug fixes and performance
improvements, as well as updated translations.
...
Credits

Thanks to everyone who directly contributed to this release:

• Andrew Chow
• Anthony Towns
• Hennadii Stepanov
• John Moffett
• Jon Atack
• Marco Falke
• Martin Zumsande
• Matthew Zipkin
• Michael Ford
• pablomartin4btc
• Sebastian Falbesoner
• Suhas Daftuar
• Thomas Nguyen
• Vasil Dimov

Looks like more than 5 to me, and this is just the most recent release. If you look at the number of devs that have actually made commits to Bitcoin over the years, its over 900:



https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors

They are thinking things through before taking any action. This (along with possessing actual technical knowledge & experience) is why they are in the position they're in, and you are not.

[franky1]

you need to learn the difference between contributors vs the maintainers that decide what gets contributed.
because alot of those 910 contributors over the 14 years that were just grammar checkers

also alot of them contributors are not even contributing anymore
take that final image.. it shows gavin andressen in the top 11 listing of most code contributed.. but he has not contributed for half a decade+
and majority of others top contributors (actually working now) are the SAME main 5 that are all sponsored by the same source of money that are now the maintainers.
EG they are not the independent reviewers that let good code in and reject bad code.. they are the 5 that "force merge" their own code in without other parties acknowledgement

but yea you "trust" them. more then independently reading the code for yourself and calling them out when they created the exploits. because i sure as hell didnt cause the exploit yet you lemmings wan to pretend im the enemy that is breaking bitcoin.. funny that
you dont want them taking responsibility for their actions. you just want to give them a blind pass due to fame and control presence

you cry that i dont publicly release code.. but then want to pretend that im the authoritarian that wants to break bitcoin.
how can i be the one that breaks bitcoin if i havnt released any code..(learn logic))

 yet those that have released bitcoin code and do have the authoritarian hierarchy and created exploits, you dont want people saying a bad word about them and dont want them to fix their errors.. yes they made errors but you blindly trust them.. it does make me laugh

especially how you know they created an exploit but dont want them to fix it and even when exploits do exist you think they are gods that never done anything bad.. emphasis is even when they did create bugs/exploits


i keep laughing that your screams along with your forum buddy shout and scream that "franky done" even though you will not see mode code on core so.. its funny how you want to point fingers at me even though i did not create the exploits..
in short its you obsessing about a person thats not even controlling bitcoin..
yet when i mention people that are controlling bitcoin code you want that all hushed up

Given how often you bungle the most mundane of technical details, I have far more trust in the abilities of those "5 maintainers" than I do in you, but of course way more people actually contribute to Core than you would like us to believe.

you bungled your own example of ordinals proof.. but hey you care more about "trusting project manager" more so then reading blockdata/code.
you care more about the humans than what happens in code.

bitcoin is code. learn to review, research, scrutinise the code. and then look at the entities that wrote the code that created the exploits. then dont trust them
sorry but we as bitcoiners need to scrutinise those who are actually in control. not give them a loving pass to do as they like.. they need to take responsibilities for their acts that cause headaches for others

oh and even when Wladimir Van der Laan (ex LEAD maintainer) left. he admitted core has got too centralised. as did the previous LEAD maintainer and the first one.. they all said that development should not be centralised..
but hey as soon as they leave the god-mode team you want to dismiss their comments because to you and your buddies they are no longer the god-mode team so should be ignored

all you are is a suck-up that trust humans rather review code, rather than scrutinise code, rather then want good working code.

[DooMAD]

I'm not going to respond directly to fuckwit1, but I will continue to point out the myriad logical fallacies and blatant double standards.

Trying to tell devs what they can or can't code makes you an authoritarian.  Publishing code offers people choice (the complete opposite of authoritarianism).

When fascist1 continues his relentless tirade against Core, it's because he's "holding them accountable".  When anyone raises concerns about other devs, it's suddenly "REKT" and somehow less legitimate.  He's a total hypocrite.

[larry_vw_1955]

and one final point. this is a discussion forum.

ok

you wanting me to just shut up and fork off is not even an original thought made by you.. heck you are doing the same games.. "make a website and pretend its bitcoin"

not pretend but for real. why would someone do something for pretend. you do something for real.

so the code solutions are out there already.. but it requires the masses to not treat core as god for other brands/patches to even get adopted.. or for core themselves to open up and come down a peg or two to be willing to accept adjustments not made by the top 5 maintainers.

the only way those patches are going to gain any type of widespread useage is if someone packages it all up into a bitcoin core clone. hence my idea that i proposed but you took the wrong way. so i don't think i'm going to be talking to you for a while franky. you seem to take it too personally.  

Trying to tell devs what they can or can't code makes you an authoritarian.  Publishing code offers people choice (the complete opposite of authoritarianism).

that's a good point.

[franky1]

and one final point. this is a discussion forum.

ok

you wanting me to just shut up and fork off is not even an original thought made by you.. heck you are doing the same games.. "make a website and pretend its bitcoin"

not pretend but for real. why would someone do something for pretend. you do something for real.

so the code solutions are out there already.. but it requires the masses to not treat core as god for other brands/patches to even get adopted.. or for core themselves to open up and come down a peg or two to be willing to accept adjustments not made by the top 5 maintainers.

the only way those patches are going to gain any type of widespread useage is if someone packages it all up into a bitcoin core clone. hence my idea that i proposed but you took the wrong way. so i don't think i'm going to be talking to you for a while franky. you seem to take it too personally.  

Trying to tell devs what they can or can't code makes you an authoritarian.  Publishing code offers people choice (the complete opposite of authoritarianism).

that's a good point.

firstly YOU said the word pretend.. so dont step back now and act as if you didnt. dont spin it on me. ook at your own post history.

secondly choice?
core being the sole arbiter of code upgrade is not a choice.. you mean control, not choice.. cores lemmings REKTing anyone who dares offer something different.. REKting them as by treating them only as an opposition who should be made to f**k off to create an alcoin is not a bitcoin choice. thats a competing currency choice. leaving bitcoin in control of core..  is not a diverse decentralised choice for bitcoin thats the removal of choice for bitcoiners.
the only option is not "fork off"

heck some have not even released code and you are already trying to convince people not to trust or use it if they were to release it,. yep you and doomad and his clan are doing the same crap..

yes your scripts are not original doomad and his clan played this same game years ago.

but hey you keep forgetting im not the authoritarian.. you want to call me one to shift blame.. but i am not because i am not controlling the rules. core does. so get a dictionary and learn the words you use stop just using idiots as your source. there is a difference between doomads scripts and whats really happening. go learn. try to learn for your self not to suck up to someone else

see who wrote the code that created the exploits and the 5 maintainers that allowed it. then see if those same 5 maintainers are apologising or coming up with a fix. then you will see where the problem actually lays

if you want to play the scripts of 'dont scrutinise core', 'dont critique core', 'dont ask core to take responsibility' then you are the fool that want core to continue to be the authoritarian.. the "gods" no one should oppose.

core should be the ones everyone should be reviewing scrutinising holding to account and responsibility and the ones people should be asking to fix things.. especially when the caused it

LEARN the true meaning of authoritarianism because you have been suckered into letting core become one

[ABCbits]

others already have released code. but people dont adopt it because "its not core"*

I've tried few different Bitcoin full node software in past and i can see why people choose Bitcoin Core even when different software exist. Based on my experience, Bitcoin Core is most stable software with fairly good performance. Meanwhile different full node have few weird thing such as,
1. Gocoin has great performance, but it load entire UTXO on RAM[1].
2. Bcoin is awkward if you only plan to run full node and not developing software[2]. It's development also has slowed down[3].
3. Libbitcoin-server is prone to corruption[4].

So IMO it's not surprising almost everyone use Bitcoin Core.

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5407675.0
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5417193.0
[3] https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin/commits/master
[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5329445.msg56832879#msg56832879

--snip--
Looks like more than 5 to me, and this is just the most recent release. If you look at the number of devs that have actually made commits to Bitcoin over the years, its over 900:



https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors

They are thinking things through before taking any action. This (along with possessing actual technical knowledge & experience) is why they are in the position they're in, and you are not.

Actually total convtribor of all time is higher than 900 since some contributor doesn't have/use GitHub account. See this account https://github.com/non-github-bitcoin.

[nutildah]

you need to learn the difference between contributors vs the maintainers that decide what gets contributed.
because alot of those 910 contributors over the 14 years that were just grammar checkers

Stop changing the argument to suit your fragile ego. You keep suggesting only 5 people are working on Bitcoin Core:

or for core themselves to open up and come down a peg or two to be willing to accept adjustments not made by the top 5 maintainers.

and that's simply not true.

you bungled your own example of ordinals proof.. but hey you care more about "trusting project manager" more so then reading blockdata/code.

I explained to you how Ordinals transfers work 3 times using proof and verification from multiple sources. It went over your head 3 times because you insist things have to work according to your imaginary rules that nobody cares about, backed by nothing but hot air. Not sure there's any hope for you here.

since some contributor doesn't have/use GitHub account. See this account https://github.com/non-github-bitcoin.

This is interesting but it appears to be completely empty...

[BlackHatCoiner]

your technical knowlegdge of how bitcoin works franky is pretty next level. there's no doubt about that

There's very much doubt about that. Based on his blatant lies about how the lightning network works, and the inability to see value in backwards-compatible software, I rather think he is technically inexperienced. Not to mention that he hasn't wrote a line of code and just whines about how developers should code.

This is interesting but it appears to be completely empty...

Is the point of the account to see the text below? There are no commitments, so I guess maybe the Bitcoin Core rep indirectly sends you there for very old commitments, unofficially.

This is a dummy account for those who have committed to bitcoin/bitcoin but do not have a github account. People included here: s_nakamoto, sirius-m, laszloh

[Wind_FURY]

your technical knowlegdge of how bitcoin works franky is pretty next level. there's no doubt about that

There's very much doubt about that. Based on his blatant lies about how the lightning network works, and the inability to see value in backwards-compatible software, I rather think he is technically inexperienced. Not to mention that he hasn't wrote a line of code and just whines about how developers should code.

Haha yeah, and it's not just about disinformation and the lies about the Lightning Network. It's also the fact that he evangelized that Bitcoin Unlimited, and all those hard forks to bigger blocks, are the best technical solutions to scaling the network. He probably should make his definition of scaling clear.

Furthermore, don't miscalculate how smart those who spread FUD in the forum are. 4D Chess is being played, but you might already know.

 

[Artemis3]

Don't worry, this new v25 release allows smaller transactions, smaller as in 65kb...

[franky1]

Haha yeah, and it's not just about disinformation and the lies about the Lightning Network.

even you dont know how lightning works. you cant even tell the difference of what data is inside an onion payment. you dont realise that msats are not understood by the bitcoin network nor do you know how the value shifts from payer to payee. it involves borrowing middle mens channel balance to play pass the parcel for a fee.

heck you dont even realise how easy it is for lightning factories and wallet owners can create lightning channels with partners that dont require confirmed locked value on the bitcoin network to peg to(or not be pegged to to be more specific)

but soon when more regulations come about causing routers to require registering as money service businesses(payment facilitators) you might learn the hard way of how lightning is different to running a bitcoin node and making a bitcoin transaction

it might be best you actually learn stuff away from the spoon feeds of your master

also when bitcoin network tx is an average of 3btc you may also learn that bitcoiners wont get much "payment success" events on lightning due to the liquidity issues of the pass the parcel borrowing game of lightning..

but hey until then i will just see you only want to recite your masters hymn sheet of mythical songs which you religiously believe are historic facts.

It's also the fact that he evangelized that Bitcoin Unlimited, and all those hard forks to bigger blocks, are the best technical solutions to scaling the network. He probably should make his definition of scaling clear.

actually i was never an angel trying to convert people to a religion.. you and your master (after the saga) tried to pigeon hole me into that group because i simply had an opinion that core were doing things in a controlling way(madated block rejections to get a faked 100% consensus vote) and treating other brands as opposition so you THOUGHT i must be on that other brands team

your failure to understand that more tx capacity is different to "bigger blocks " is your ignorance of the whole saga becasue instead of reading the details you followed your masters scripts of the buzzword "bigger blocks" which was a misinformation of what was actually requested by many

yep you and he thought it meant 100gb blocks by X time and other nonsense extremities that your master was promoting as the other option(s). so it was your mistake of not carefully researching the definitions of scaling options outside of your echo chamber your master created around you.

your problem as is blackhat, nutildah and the other clan of echo's is that you reply with and rely on spoonfeeds from idiot project managers comments, rather than doing independent research involving reading blockdata, code, and looking at who exactly wrote the code.. instead you try to point fingers away from the flaws of project managers and blindly idolise them like a religious cult.

your lesson you wil learn the hard way is when you were promised riches if you can recruit people to LN you will get to syphon many fee's fro your recruits. you will learn you need to become a MSB
blackhat will learn the hard way about the mixer regulations.. he is still playing ignorant that there are any.. he will learn the hard way there are
doomad will just scam people until caught
and nutildah will just keep scamming people with memes(he pretend to not be doing that but seems too financially vested in keeping the scam alive to not be financially invested in their continuance)

[larry_vw_1955]

Not to mention that he hasn't wrote a line of code and just whines about how developers should code.

yeah, i wasn't sure if he ever wrote any code or not. but then in this very thread he said he did.

i have learned more about bitcoin then you ever have. i have done more bitcoin stuff then you and earned more bitcoin then you. heck i have even wrote more bitcoin code then you.

but he didn't like my idea that he could try and make a website with a modified bitcoin core. he said this was just a discussion forum.

and one final point. this is a discussion forum.

of course, it's alot of work to maintain an entire bitcoin core. but for the most part you would just make the modifications necessary to remove the monkeys from reproducing and then just copy/paste standard bitcoin core everywhere else it would seem like. the equivalently hard part would be marketing your invention to the world. that's where the website would come in.

You would need to market your website obviously.
https://blog.hubspot.com/website/how-to-promote-a-new-website

Don't worry, this new v25 release allows smaller transactions, smaller as in 65kb...

what's that mean ?  

[nutildah]

(he pretend to not be doing that but seems too financially vested in keeping the scam alive to not be financially invested in their continuance)

franknbeans

try to learn how this works. try to read, try to research. don't just follow your blind agenda.

here's how our relationship works in reality:

you say something wrong, i correct you using multiple sources to form a logical explanation. when you stop saying wrong things, i'll stop correcting you. if you keep saying wrong things, i'll keep correcting you.

the funny thing is i don't friggen care whether ordinals or BRC20 succeeds.

heck i even provided actionable ways to counter them while you've whinged yourself a pity party

yep i realize there's more elegant solutions to do NFTs on bitcoin and have been doing them myself for years

stop getting it wrong, and i'll stop correcting you.


edit:

on a related note, this thread encapsulates a lot of the reasons why BRC20 is dumb, although I know I'm preaching to the choir:

[franky1]

nutildah.. you pretend to say you are correcting me but you did not even review your own reply when you gave an example of a supposed taintpath of a meme.. . because the links to that example of the taint path of ordinals you shown. did not actually follow the direction you promoted..    ..should you dare go and check your post history

yep you thought the meme was handed off to some "3" prefix multisig address when infact it went to .. if you were to read the theory correctly went to another address with 1GQ beginning and taint hoped that address for hundreds of spends

if you want to follow a theory that suggests counting sats.. then COUNT THEM
use blockchain data itself to count them using actual math, not the project managers explorer display that is known to miscount or mis assign them

but even outside the theory and the broke explorer count. the memes and json data sits in witness not beside any particular output so again the output assignment has no strict rule. and is all based on broken theory of a user display rather than cryptographic proof of transfer

nothing that is signed for in a tx actually stipulates that meme belongs to a particular output becasue the meme sits outside of the signed tx data

but hey. when you trust a project managers gimmicky promise of a theory. rather then checking if that theory is correct by looking at the actual blockdata flow. you learn the hard way that you are the one in the wrong.
the lesson to learn there is dont blindly trust project managers explainers.. nor their greedy scammy fans. instead read the block data.. trust math. not a scammers say so

now go back to the example you gave. and this time use math and economics to actually see where the sats go to logically.. using the blockdata.. not the ordinals display of chosen path.. because the ordinals display miscounts. and it has been proven by many

.. as for larry:
even without publicly releasing code. people are getting REKT for even suggesting a fix.
the reason the other brands that class themselves as fullnodes dont propose upgrades is the wrath of the core REKTing crew jumping on them and treating them as opposition that should just "f**k off and create an altcoin and see who follows" is a REKTing campaign that has a long history. so they dont bother because the economic nodes and majority of mining hash is in the same corporate ownership of who is sponsoring the core devs.. (the NYA agreement group)
thus they will always follow the core roadmap becasue its THEIR roadmap and they dont want anyone diverting bitcoin away from their plan

GET IT YET

a prime example is how Luke JR although he was considered a highly involved maintainer/(now occassional )contributor and previously a Bip moderator. he has since been regulated out of the power house of core maintainers.

he could not even get his discourage ordinals fix into a core bip listing let alone a commit inside core.
and thats one of the main devs people used to consider a main guy of core before the hierarchy went too god-mode

same is said about previous lead maintainers 7+ years ago, they got regulated out and treated as an outside to be ignored too

this is why many many dev teams no longer make full nodes for bitcoin and instead just created things like ethereum and other alts over the years becasue when core started up they got told their ideas dont suit the core plan

there is a long history you are ignoring about REKT campaigns that have lead to core entering a god mode control of bitcoin.
and its that control that needs to disipate by making people aware of it so they can request core break down their hierarchy and be more open gated community not just open source

again learn the difference between a highly moderated dev group (closed gated) vs clear to view but not to edit(open source) of the protocol

[larry_vw_1955]

vitalik and hoskinson they left bitcoin no one forced them to. they could have stayed. but they wanted to do radically different things so they needed to make their own projects not just tamper with bitcoin. simple as that. but there's nothing stopping somebody from making changes to bitcoin core and offering it as an alternative. no one can stop anyone from doing that. at all.

for someone that refuses to go start their own project then they have to make their new bitcoin core still be in consensus with the bitcoin everyone else is running. they can tighten rules though. in other words, stop monkeys. and still remain in consensus. their version of bitcoin can reject more transactions than bitcoin core it just can't allow more.

i guess franky doesn't really understand all of this...

[vjudeu]

but there's nothing stopping somebody from making changes to bitcoin core and offering it as an alternative. no one can stop anyone from doing that. at all.

Releases are signed. Public keys used to sign them are in sources. Creating a new repository in some other place is possible, but you have to convince people to run something that is not signed by previous developers, and that part is hard. Another thing is convincing mining pool operators: as long as you convince only regular users, it won't change that much, because mining pools can decide, what is included, and what is not. As a user, you can only decide, what is relayed.

their version of bitcoin can reject more transactions than bitcoin core it just can't allow more

When it comes to relaying things, you can add more fields, this is backward-compatible. For example, Segwit added witness data, and old nodes cannot see those things at all, and they are still following the same chain of block headers. In the same way, you can add any commitments, that other nodes will skip. Not to mention that you can also accept additional types of P2P messages, that other nodes won't accept.

I think he refer to new behavior on Bitcoin Core 25.0 which released yesterday. But i'm not sure which change he refer to.

In the latest version, you can make 65-byte transaction or bigger. Previously, it was more restricted. The main reason for not allowing 64-byte transaction is SPV proof of the merkle tree, that also has this size. But I wonder if making 80-byte transaction can be somehow harmful, because it could be hashed in the same way as block headers.