And you again demonstrate your abysmal ignorance to the fact that a protocol is not the same thing as a software implementation. You seem to parrot this inanity at every opportunity, heaping yet another pile of rightful derision upon your ignorant ass. One might expect that a person with a modicum of intelligence, having this gaping hole in their knowledge pointed out to them repeatedly, would pause to actually learn something about the matter. But no. Not you. No, not you.
Congrats on taking 80 words to say nothing at all. You can't generate an actual counter-argument so you harp on some inane semantics that only matter to you. You don't get to decide what the end all, be all code behind Satohi's envisioning of the Bitcoin Protocol entails.
You keep trying to claim that a protocol is the same thing as a software implementation. You just look stupider and stupider every time you do so.
FWIW, BTC has indeed endured a hard fork - though it was back in the time before BTC, BCH, and then BSV each went their own respective directions. So it is irrelevant as a differentiator. But you still want to cling to 'soft forks only', don't you? Demonstrating yet another vector of your ignorance.
This is a straight up lie. But I expect nothing less from those who swallow the talking points of a pathologically lying cult leader without the slightest bit of reservation.
