I think this has gone far enough now. Can we draw a line under this and go back to the actual discussion the topic is about?
FUD by frankandbeans.
You accuse the Core Developers of having hidden motives/not trustworthy, but you support the the movement of Roger Ver + Jihan Wu to split the community, to hard fork into an altcoin, then call that "The Real Bitcoin" because Satoshi's white paper. Who were the signatories in the New York Agreement? Why were the Core Developers NOT invited, which for them, was such an important meeting?
no i did not.. my post history never even comes close to what
you reciteOK, pardon me, frankandbeans. You and Jonald_Fyookball "merely" wanted Bitcoin to hard fork to bigger blocks - Bitcoin XT/Bitcoin Classic, and supported the people - Marc Andresen/Mike Hearn - who conspired together and "free" Bitcoin from the "evil" Core Developers, no?
but your post history and doomads does show you are learning your scripts from the wrong people. you sound too much like doomad religious scripts where he used to pidgeon hole anyone not treating core devs as gods as people who must be altcoin adorers
you make yourself look silly when you cant think for yourself and just recite old religious songs sung by doomad
Did two of "those people" the people who gave you two negative trust-ratings?
Negative trust aside, what his post history *does* prove, is that he hates backwards-compatible softforks. And I feel this is enough to make the vast majority of posts he's ever made irrelevant.
For anyone who doesn't know, softforks are the preferred method of deploying updates, because it means you can still use older versions of the software without being forked off the network. franky1 vehemently believes that every rule change should be a hardfork, despite the fact that very few changes have ever been made that way (it honestly wouldn't surprise me if he didn't even know what a softfork was until SegWit and probably assumed it was a brand new thing Core had just invented). But softforks have been used in Bitcoin long before franky1 started using it in 2013.
If Bitcoin only used hardforks for rule changes, it would undeniably be more divisive, less inclusive and lead to more splits and forkcoins (and
replay attacks, where users could lose funds). That's an unavoidable consequence of using hardforks exclusively, which is a concept anyone who understands the mechanics of this stuff can grasp. But franky1 will continue to lie about that, because he's a disgusting piece of shit who despises freedom.
And even if Bitcoin using exclusively hardforks wasn't a terrible idea (and I can't stress strongly enough how bad an idea it is), he can't actually
do anything about it anyway. For this reason alone, franky1 can never "
win". No one can prevent people from writing backwards-compatible software. No one can stop anyone else from running-backwards compatible software. It simply isn't possible. So merely
reading his incessant, gutless, pathetic, crybaby screeching about it is a complete waste of everyone's time. He might as well unavailingly cry about how water is wet and he thinks it shouldn't be. Since he's never going to successfully change anything in Bitcoin, he's not a threat. I'm not going to waste any more of my time responding directly to franky1. His entire existence and everything he has ever posted on this board is ineffectual. It carries no consequence or impact. Bitcoin would be exactly the same as it is now if he had never existed. He impacts nothing. He already lost the argument before he tried to make it, because what he wants is impossible.
It would also be nice if I didn't have to
see his posts when people quote him.
There's no point arguing with him, as it just gives him another reason to post more lies and make-believe gibberish. He'll always insist on having the last word. All he does is derail topics (notice how we're meant to be talking about funding of development and now we aren't?). Just add him to your 'ignore' list. Note, however, that if you spot another forum user buying into his delusions and quoting him, by all means have a discussion with that user. They'll be reasonable and will be happy to engage in a rational conversation. And they'll actually learn something. Outcomes you'll never get with batshitinsane1. Engaging with lunatics isn't a fruitful endeavour. It's problematic to convince them why they're wrong because they can't see reality for what it is. If he can't be saved, just focus on saving the ones who believe his lies.
So, if we could now get back on topic and go back to discussing funding for development, that would be great. I'd also strongly recommend
everyone adds franky1 to their ignore list so he can't keep derailing threads, lying to newbies. and generally being an egregious waste of oxygen.
//EDIT: And I know he's going to reply to this, saying how bad a person I am, but I don't care. He can attack me all he likes. Makes no difference. I won't be responding to him anymore.