Can tail emmision be a soft fork

[vjudeu]

and I don't even understand why it could not be backward compatible

It could be backward-compatible. It depends on implementation.

1. If you want to change 0.04882812 BTC into 0.048828120 BTC, then there is no problem. LN changed it into 0.04882812000 BTC, and it works fine.
2. If you want to change 0.04882812 BTC into 0.048828125 BTC, then you just produced 0.5 satoshi out of thin air. You can do that as well, but then things are more complicated than in the previous case.

Which means, it doesn't matter if you create a single additional satoshi, or if you want to double the supply. The code for both cases will be similar, and will require mapping the supply, by using appropriate proportions.

So, the big question is: Do you want to increase the supply, even by a single satoshi, or not at all? Because if you do, then it makes code much more complex. It is still possible, but then it is not a simple 1:1 mapping, because the old system does not allow you to produce that coin out of thin air, and you have to use some tricks, to make it compatible.

Also, in practice the whole implementation depends on what do you really want. Because if your only goal is to ensure that miners will get 0.04882812,5 BTC per block, and so on, then guess what: you can collect 0.0231 BTC, and timelock it into future blocks, by using OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. And the basic setup can be done here and now, because instead of sending half satoshi to every block, you can send one satoshi every two blocks, and it will also work.

And then, if additional precision will be available, you can fix it, and spread equally between blocks. Optionally, if you want to make it voluntarily, you can lock your coins using "my key or locktime" script, then you can have a chance to change your mind, if you want. Also note that Taproot can be used to make all of that, while also preserving your privacy. Because you can have your regular Taproot address, and create a TapScript, that could allow getting coins by locktime in the future. All of that is possible, because anyone can safely lock coins in a "spend by me, or by anyone after block 123,456,789".

[1715134953]

1715134953

[1715134953]

1715134953

[1715134953]

1715134953

[Medusah]

and I don't even understand why it could not be backward compatible

It could be backward-compatible. It depends on implementation.

1. If you want to change 0.04882812 BTC into 0.048828120 BTC, then there is no problem. LN changed it into 0.04882812000 BTC, and it works fine.
2. If you want to change 0.04882812 BTC into 0.048828125 BTC, then you just produced 0.5 satoshi out of thin air. You can do that as well, but then things are more complicated than in the previous case.

Can you explain to me how the second implementation would be backwards compatible?  That 0.5 satoshi will not be spendable in old clients.

[vjudeu]

Can you explain to me how the second implementation would be backwards compatible?

It is all about proportions. If you produce 0.5 satoshi out of thin air, then it means, you should map oldSupply into oldSupply+0.5. Or rather, if you want to use integers-only, then: 2*oldSupply to 2*oldSupply+1. Which means, if you produce more coins, then when you try to send them, you may see for example 1.00000000 BTC in the new network, but only 0.99999999 BTC in the old one.

Mapping 1:1 is trivial. Mapping 1:1000 is simple, but still requires some tricks. But here, in the endless halving model, you could have 2099999997690000 : 2100000000000000 mapping. Which means, every 1 BTC from the new network, would be visible as approximately 0.9999999989 BTC in the old one (and practically, it would mean switching between 0.99999999 BTC and 1.00000000 BTC, just the last satoshi may be owned by more than one person, maybe even by millions of people, if you want to address edge cases).

So, is it possible to have 2099999997690000 : 2100000000000000 mapping? Technically, and mathematically, yes. But practically, most people would vote against it, so it will not pass any signalling, in case of soft-fork, and may fail to be introduced on LN level, because then you have to explain, how it works, and when someone will understand it, then that person could be very disappointed, and ask questions like: "so, I have that endless halving, but the cost is to have that single satoshis, owned by half of my network?". And the answer is "yes" in this case: if you want to produce any new coins (no matter if it is only half of the satoshi for the whole network), then be prepared for troubles like that.

[satscraper]

Hey,

I read a tweet from someone that said, a BTC tail emmision could be done as soft fork. I have some technically experiance in blockchain so..... the main reward scheme could of course only be changed by hard fork.

But as after Segwit and so on some more things are possible with BTC Script. For example LN gets BTC to one place to another without trust of the main chain

So may there be the possibltly that some kind of extra reward can be send by the Algo to the miners by Scrypt or anything else with only a soft fork?

Please technical informative replies only!

Thanks

Peter Todd, whose technical background doesn't  pose any   challenge to cryptocommunity, expressed his view on this matter saying that Bitcoin could add a tail emission via hardfork rather than soft fork due to the  vast full nodes network   the size of which  stands head and shoulders above ,say, Monero

[garlonicon]

Additionally, Monero has a culture of frequent hard forks that simply does not exist in Bitcoin.

This is the reason, why they did it in a hard-fork way. Because their community is used to that approach. The same rule applies for a lot of altcoins: they could use soft-forks, but they don't have to, and don't want to, so that's why it is what it is.

This has been a monero marketing point for a long time.   To some extent I think it's kind of pointless navel gazing.

In general, you can follow the whole discussion between Peter Todd and Gregory Maxwell, to get the full context.

[Wind_FURY]

but still like others said it might not be justifiable without a certain value.. I doubt that it a dollar and I even doubt that is a penny.. so even 1/1000 of a penny might be justifiable to recognize such further down digits..

Then why not use the Lightning Network if an app or a project needs sub-satoshi units? It's there, it's ready.

but hey, I am just one person.  What do I know regarding what people want to do today as compared to what they might want to do in 2048 or times approaching 2048 when it might be considered if more than 8 digits might be justified to recognize on bitcoin's main chain.

That would be very low probability, in my opinion. Bitcoin's supply cap and units are ossifying towards 21,000,000 coins, with 8 decimal places.

It sounds to me like you are just making shit up.. regarding your ossification language.. but hey, if there is no perception of any need to recognize mining rewards into the 9th digits in 2048, then I doubt that I give too many shits.  We might have to reassess where people are at (including where the BTC price is at) when it comes closer to 2048. we are still 25 years out from there.. so a lot of thing can change in the next 25 years including what is the value of a satoshi and therefore what would be the value of units smaller than a satoshi (further dividing the satoshi in order to recognize the then mining reward, for example)..

But currently, am I? Haven't you been observing what's going on in the network in matters of development, proposals, and what changes are made in the protocol? Do you believe that the longer Bitcoin keeps chugging along, the more the Core Developers, the Economic Majority, and the large investors will be open to such changes like increasing the total supply, or the block size?

Yeah.. but we are not talking about changing the size.  We are talking about recognizing the 9th digit in 2048, the 10th digit in 2052, the 11th digit in 2056.. etc etc.. and it does not even seem very controversial.. especially if there were to be some kind of meaningful software that gets implemented and the peeps just start to run it.. ¡Viola!!!   softfork implemented.

Some parts of the network are ossifying/becoming impossible to change/update. Plus 21,000,000 Bitcoins has become like a social contract. Breaking it might have consequences.

You might be talking about increasing the number of coins.  I am not.  Increasing the recognized digits does not increase the number of coins.

Sure part of this topic is the idea of "tail emissions," which would be increasing the number of coins, but personally, I am not even talking about that part..

By the way, I agree with the overall idea that increasing the number of coins is not likely going to be very acceptable by hardly anyone already in bitcoin, and that idea had already been quite strong from the beginning of bitcoin, so hard to even hypothesize that anyone would want to change that or even consider scenarios that increasing the number of coins would be justifiable.. even if it might be through some kind of a fixed tail emissions..

You make it sound like it's "simple", but I believe it's better that we get the opinions of more qualified individuals in the community, like gmaxwell.

Plus none of what you mentioned says or even debates that some of the parts of the network is starting to ossify/or has actually ossified and may never change. It's probably good for the network to have the stability.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

That does not make much if any sense.  He must not yet know about this thread.

It's not about this topic, it's about all the topics where he posts.
 

To me, it still does not make any sense.. and so maybe it is just me?

Perhaps, BUT are you actually saying that frankandbeans is NOT spreading disinformation? Disinformation like the Lightning Network is a network of IOUs?

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

You make it sound like it's "simple", but I believe it's better that we get the opinions of more qualified individuals in the community, like gmaxwell.

I don't have any problem with having the more expert folks (especially in terms of the technicals to chime in)... I also have no problem asserting that recognizing further digits should be simple as fuck....including that it is likely not seeming to mess with anything, even in the original intents that seem to be present with bitcoin and its every 4-year halvening.. while at the same time I will admit that I don't actually know very much about coding...

Maybe I should take a few coding classes to become a real "know it all" arm-chair expert? since you are getting into credentializm nonsense, and even if your first request for gmaxwell, Achow and/or frankie did not seem like appeals to authority, but your trying to suggest that I don't know enough for your desires seems to be attempting to denigrate my assertions based on my supposed lack of authority, which even though it might be true that I don't know much or anything about this in terms of technicals, we have not had any real decent arguments suggesting that what I am saying is technologically problematic... especially in the way that I am framing it in terms of 1 more digit every 4 years starting from 2048.

Plus none of what you mentioned says or even debates that some of the parts of the network is starting to ossify/or has actually ossified and may never change. It's probably good for the network to have the stability.

I already addressed that in my superficial way of saying that it seems that you are just throwing out BIG words that don't really seem to apply very much to something like this.. and furthermore, I mentioned that probably node runners could just start to run the software that recognizes further digits down and that seems like a soft fork to me and also seems like ossification doesn't really apply.

Your example of ossification was about the 21 million being breached, and my example of recognizing digits does not change that 21 million limit, even if it would end up resulting in the recognition of coins (sats) that would not have otherwise have had been recognized within the 8 digit limit.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

That does not make much if any sense.  He must not yet know about this thread.

It's not about this topic, it's about all the topics where he posts.
 

To me, it still does not make any sense.. and so maybe it is just me?

Perhaps, BUT are you actually saying that frankandbeans is NOT spreading disinformation? Disinformation like the Lightning Network is a network of IOUs?

Yeah.. but so what?  who cares?  You said that if he continues to post, then his posts will make him look dumber and dumber.. .and that assumes that everything that he posts is dumb.. which I am not going to go along with that presumption, even if I might be willing to go along with a presumption that he posts a lot of disinformation.. but that still does not mean that everything he posts is disinformation or going to be recognized as disinformation.  I have had about enough talking about your seeming loneliness in regards to franky.

[Wind_FURY]

[edited out]

You make it sound like it's "simple", but I believe it's better that we get the opinions of more qualified individuals in the community, like gmaxwell.

I don't have any problem with having the more expert folks (especially in terms of the technicals to chime in)... I also have no problem asserting that recognizing further digits should be simple as fuck....including that it is likely not seeming to mess with anything, even in the original intents that seem to be present with bitcoin and its every 4-year halvening.. while at the same time I will admit that I don't actually know very much about coding...

Maybe I should take a few coding classes to become a real "know it all" arm-chair expert? since you are getting into credentializm nonsense, and even if your first request for gmaxwell, Achow and/or frankie did not seem like appeals to authority, but your trying to suggest that I don't know enough for your desires seems to be attempting to denigrate my assertions based on my supposed lack of authority, which even though it might be true that I don't know much or anything about this in terms of technicals, we have not had any real decent arguments suggesting that what I am saying is technologically problematic... especially in the way that I am framing it in terms of 1 more digit every 4 years starting from 2048.

Laughable that you include frankandbeans to be among the elite developers of Bitcoin Core. Hahaha. That person simply can't be trusted. I believe you would agree.

Plus no, I'm not trying to denigrate your assertions. But like you, I'm also here to learn more about Bitcoin, and you told everyone yourself that you don't actually know much about coding/technical matters about Bitcoin. So do I, I too need to learn more. We need good people like gmaxwell and achow to guide/teach us.

Plus none of what you mentioned says or even debates that some of the parts of the network is starting to ossify/or has actually ossified and may never change. It's probably good for the network to have the stability.

I already addressed that in my superficial way of saying that it seems that you are just throwing out BIG words that don't really seem to apply very much to something like this.. and furthermore, I mentioned that probably node runners could just start to run the software that recognizes further digits down and that seems like a soft fork to me and also seems like ossification doesn't really apply.

That's not how soft forks work. We can't merely run full nodes with our own rules and call that a soft fork.

Your example of ossification was about the 21 million being breached, and my example of recognizing digits does not change that 21 million limit, even if it would end up resulting in the recognition of coins (sats) that would not have otherwise have had been recognized within the 8 digit limit.

Let's not nitpick. Let me end the debate by saying that the longer the network exists, the more resistant it is to change. If you don't agree, then OK.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

That does not make much if any sense.  He must not yet know about this thread.

It's not about this topic, it's about all the topics where he posts.
 

To me, it still does not make any sense.. and so maybe it is just me?

Perhaps, BUT are you actually saying that frankandbeans is NOT spreading disinformation? Disinformation like the Lightning Network is a network of IOUs?

Yeah.. but so what?  who cares?  You said that if he continues to post, then his posts will make him look dumber and dumber.. .and that assumes that everything that he posts is dumb.. which I am not going to go along with that presumption, even if I might be willing to go along with a presumption that he posts a lot of disinformation.. but that still does not mean that everything he posts is disinformation or going to be recognized as disinformation.  I have had about enough talking about your seeming loneliness in regards to franky.

That's because he's playing 4D Chess, ser. He needs to post some real information to mix in with his gaslighting, FUD, and the disinformation. Read his trust-rating as posted by gmaxwell and achow.

[JayJuanGee]

[edited out]

You make it sound like it's "simple", but I believe it's better that we get the opinions of more qualified individuals in the community, like gmaxwell.

I don't have any problem with having the more expert folks (especially in terms of the technicals to chime in)... I also have no problem asserting that recognizing further digits should be simple as fuck....including that it is likely not seeming to mess with anything, even in the original intents that seem to be present with bitcoin and its every 4-year halvening.. while at the same time I will admit that I don't actually know very much about coding...

Maybe I should take a few coding classes to become a real "know it all" arm-chair expert? since you are getting into credentializm nonsense, and even if your first request for gmaxwell, Achow and/or frankie did not seem like appeals to authority, but your trying to suggest that I don't know enough for your desires seems to be attempting to denigrate my assertions based on my supposed lack of authority, which even though it might be true that I don't know much or anything about this in terms of technicals, we have not had any real decent arguments suggesting that what I am saying is technologically problematic... especially in the way that I am framing it in terms of 1 more digit every 4 years starting from 2048.

Laughable that you include frankandbeans to be among the elite developers of Bitcoin Core. Hahaha. That person simply can't be trusted. I believe you would agree.

You must get some pleasure out of exaggerating what I said into something else... since largely I had been attempting to suggest that franky is one of the three forum members who you specifically requested to participate in this topic.... whether you personally consider him to have technical knowledge or not seems to be a bit of another story.. I did not make any representation in which I was either requesting his participation in this thread, and even though I acknowledged that he sometimes makes some decent points, I did not even make any kind of representation that he actually has any kind of technical knowledge that anyone should actually rely upon, especially since many of us already knows that he makes misrepresentations and frequently gets caught upon seemingly tangential and distracting spins of technical subjects - which seems to be part of the reason that his account likely continues to have restrictions in regards to forum admins considering some of his historical posts and/or behaviors problematic in regards to forum discussions.

Plus no, I'm not trying to denigrate your assertions. But like you, I'm also here to learn more about Bitcoin, and you told everyone yourself that you don't actually know much about coding/technical matters about Bitcoin. So do I, I too need to learn more. We need good people like gmaxwell and achow to guide/teach us.

There are other members who can fill such shoes.. but yeah.. no problem with the overall idea of technically smarter (or more experienced) members chiming in, but if they don't fucking chime in, then we gotta deal with what we got, which may well just be you, me and vjudeu staring at shadows in a cave and trying to figure out what they mean.. even though vjudeu does seem to know more technical angles than you and I.

Plus none of what you mentioned says or even debates that some of the parts of the network is starting to ossify/or has actually ossified and may never change. It's probably good for the network to have the stability.

I already addressed that in my superficial way of saying that it seems that you are just throwing out BIG words that don't really seem to apply very much to something like this.. and furthermore, I mentioned that probably node runners could just start to run the software that recognizes further digits down and that seems like a soft fork to me and also seems like ossification doesn't really apply.

That's not how soft forks work. We can't merely run full nodes with our own rules and call that a soft fork.

Perhaps.. but what if 10s of thousands of full nodes start running the "new implementation" that recognizes 9 digits after the decimal.. maybe even 80%.. then what is going to happen when 80% recognize the 9th digit, and 20% don't?  Are we forced into a split at that time?  I don't claim to know off the top of my head.  Do you know what happens?

Your example of ossification was about the 21 million being breached, and my example of recognizing digits does not change that 21 million limit, even if it would end up resulting in the recognition of coins (sats) that would not have otherwise have had been recognized within the 8 digit limit.

Let's not nitpick. Let me end the debate by saying that the longer the network exists, the more resistant it is to change. If you don't agree, then OK.

We seem to be repeating ourselves. I don't have anything to add or to subtract in regards to what I already said.

I believe gmaxwell and achow should get in the topic and give us the plebs their opinions. I know someone will argue "Appeal to authority", no, it's merely asking and learning from the smartest people in the room.

You are using the expression "appeal to authority" with a kind of literalness that seems to devolve into nuances of incorrect usage, and sure no problem that we might want to have (invite) some forum members who better "know technical things" to chime in on this particular topic.. someone other than your good buddy, franky..

That's what forums are for - Education and Learning from other people.

Plus let frankandbeans chime in, my "good buddy" the big blocker and BCash lover.

That's the spirit!!!!!  Even though I know that he can be annoying sometimes, especially when he starts spreading misinformation.. but hey, we cannot necessarily pre-judge what he might say... even though surely requesting Maxwell or Chow seems probably better to the extent that they might have opinions on this topic or even consider the topic to be of enough importance to chime in.

I like him to post more because, the more he posts, the more stupid he looks and people are slowly seeing that.

That does not make much if any sense.  He must not yet know about this thread.

It's not about this topic, it's about all the topics where he posts.
 

To me, it still does not make any sense.. and so maybe it is just me?

Perhaps, BUT are you actually saying that frankandbeans is NOT spreading disinformation? Disinformation like the Lightning Network is a network of IOUs?

Yeah.. but so what?  who cares?  You said that if he continues to post, then his posts will make him look dumber and dumber.. .and that assumes that everything that he posts is dumb.. which I am not going to go along with that presumption, even if I might be willing to go along with a presumption that he posts a lot of disinformation.. but that still does not mean that everything he posts is disinformation or going to be recognized as disinformation.  I have had about enough talking about your seeming loneliness in regards to franky.

That's because he's playing 4D Chess, ser. He needs to post some real information to mix in with his gaslighting, FUD, and the disinformation. Read his trust-rating as posted by gmaxwell and achow.

Ok.  I already have enough critical thinking skills to recognize and appreciate that many disinformation and misinformation efforts are going to contain elements of truth.  And sure sometimes we can conclude that some members are either completely disingenuous or close to completely disingenuous.  We are not necessarily going to come to the same conclusions regarding members to trust or what kinds of posts to merit.. otherwise each of us would have similar trust lists and/or be sending merits to the same posts.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Achow and/or frankie

You're comparing the Bitcoin Core developer with probably the most commits and over all activity in the Bitcoin space, with a whiny, anti-freedom, incompetent liar who hasn't even comprehended lightning yet. That doesn't even pass the laugh test.

I already addressed that in my superficial way of saying that it seems that you are just throwing out BIG words that don't really seem to apply very much to something like this.. and furthermore, I mentioned that probably node runners could just start to run the software that recognizes further digits down and that seems like a soft fork to me and also seems like ossification doesn't really apply.

"Seems" to you? Something is either a softfork, or it isn't. It's a matter of black or white. If the blockchain is the same to both post-fork and past-fork nodes and backwards-compatibility is retained, then it's softfork.

Ok.  I already have enough critical thinking skills to recognize and appreciate that many disinformation and misinformation efforts are going to contain elements of truth.

Do you? Because you made a ridiculous comparison.

[JayJuanGee]

Achow and/or frankie

You're comparing the Bitcoin Core developer with probably the most commits and over all activity in the Bitcoin space, with a whiny, anti-freedom, incompetent liar who hasn't even comprehended lightning yet. That doesn't even pass the laugh test.

If you think about the context, I doubt that I am really comparing them, except putting them in the same sentence regarding members who Wind_FURY specifically named regarding who he wants to chime into this thread.  So it is not any kind of statement that should be analyzed too much in terms of substance.

I already addressed that in my superficial way of saying that it seems that you are just throwing out BIG words that don't really seem to apply very much to something like this.. and furthermore, I mentioned that probably node runners could just start to run the software that recognizes further digits down and that seems like a soft fork to me and also seems like ossification doesn't really apply.

"Seems" to you? Something is either a softfork, or it isn't. It's a matter of black or white. If the blockchain is the same to both post-fork and past-fork nodes and backwards-compatibility is retained, then it's softfork.

I don't claim to know all of the situations in which we might suggest that something is a softfork... but whatever you said sounds fair enough to me.

Ok.  I already have enough critical thinking skills to recognize and appreciate that many disinformation and misinformation efforts are going to contain elements of truth.

Do you? Because you made a ridiculous comparison.

We can agree to disagree regarding my self-proclaimed level of critical-thinking skills and/or what you believe my level might be and the extent to which such potentially existing critical-thinking skills might be better or worse in some subject matters/situations as compared with others, including that I deny making the kind of comparison that you suggested that I was making regarding frankie, achow and gmaxwell or whatever it might have been that you seemed to have thought that I was ridiculously comparing when I placed frankie in the same sentence as achow and gmaxwell..

Also it seems that this topic regarding who Wind_FURY is specifically is (or had been) requesting to come into this thread to participate is becoming more than old, worn out and largely irrelevant.

[Wind_FURY]

Achow and/or frankie

You're comparing the Bitcoin Core developer with probably the most commits and over all activity in the Bitcoin space, with a whiny, anti-freedom, incompetent liar who hasn't even comprehended lightning yet. That doesn't even pass the laugh test.

If you think about the context, I doubt that I am really comparing them, except putting them in the same sentence regarding members who Wind_FURY specifically named regarding who he wants to chime into this thread.  So it is not any kind of statement that should be analyzed too much in terms of substance.

Pardon me ser, but I never wanted franky1 to chime in this topic/thread, nor have I expressed that I wanted him to. But if I did post something, I was obviously being sarcastic, and/or doing it more with the awareness that he'll merely be looking like a fool again in front of our fellow posters. Plus it's also good to see that other forum members have started to post what they truly believe in regards to frankandbeans. Newbies and our fellow plebs shouldn't need to be deceived by him, and learn the hard way.