A forum is a part of social media. It literally has "social" in the name. This isn't some roundtable for scientific discussion or an academic debate club, although if it was you'd have been booted a long time ago.
Indeed. Like how he's not permitted to post in Development & Technical Discussion. Banned due to his 'technobabble' and disruptive nature. I suggest people head there if they want a sensible discussion about technical matters. This thread is a lost cause and has been for some time.
do you agree or disagree that it requires a super majority adoption of the proposals to subject to new protocol amendments? yes or no
You're not fooling anyone. I see exactly what you're doing. Once again attempting to deny the existence of opt-in features via manipulative use of language. I'll explain it again, like I'm sure I must have explained 100 times by now:
A group of 10 people decide what to eat. 8 out of the 10 people decide to go for Fish & Chips. A majority have decided and 8 are definitely going. The remaining 2 can either tag along, despite it not really being what they wanted, or they can break with the consensus and go off to get food somewhere else by themselves (hardfork).
The consensus is for Fish & Chips. However, this does not necessarily mean
just Fish and
just Chips. Some members of the group can add salt & vinegar, others might prefer tartar sauce. Some might add a cheeky pickled onion, others might even add a saveloy or battered sausage (opt-in softfork). They do not require permission from a majority of the members in the group to customise their own meal in this way. The consensus is still for Fish & Chips. But people can add other things if they want. Because individual freedom is a thing that exists here in the real world.
But since you are apparently reading from Josef Stalin's playbook and in the franky1-wonderful-world-of-make-believe Bitcoin appears to be some sort of totalitarian police state, you can't comprehend any of this. You honestly believe the consensus only allows for plain fish and plain chips. You think people need your consent to add things. You then start screeching about "
fake consensus" and "
softened rules", claiming it's somehow immoral that people are adding what they want. You despise individual freedoms. But everyone else just sees an absolute freak-of-nature ranting about nonsense while they're all getting on with eating their meals.
Why do you keep trying to deny that opt-in features are permitted? Why is your brain so unbelievably broken? You can take your perverted misinterpretation of permission and cram it up your arse, you Stalinist pig.