Topic: Ban request for user: franky1 - page 6. (Read 3088 times)

I don't hate the technology. The technology is brilliant. It's the first technology that has to do with finance, politics, psychology and sociology. What I hate is the alibi some people find to adopt it, such as the current madness with NFTs. And it may go even worse: Some people want to connect their tangible properties to that technology which makes no sense to me. Blockchains exist to avoid the central point of failure while the change of the tangible items' rights is a procedure that involves observance of laws.

Countless users of Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, envision the global adoption of their cryptocurrency and its corresponding features. However, they can't comprehend that this adoption won't do good to them besides their pockets. The devotees believe the governments will get involved with the technology without understanding that... The point is lost if they will. This leaves me to the conclusion they do everything for the profit with a smartly formulated alibi.

Quote from: franky1 on January 08, 2022, 07:41:17 PM

what do you have against satoshi's 13 years old invention, which has got you so riled up to be everything against blockchains?

Have you ever asked yourself if you are against it? You who want everything to happen in your way? Sorry, but you don't get it out of my head; you don't want consensus, but you can't stand without it at the same time. That's why you're using Bitcoin and not a fork. 'Cause you know it's invaluable, but paradoxically, you're against those alternative, innovative solutions such as the LN. Those people's willingness has given you the Bitcoin you're now enjoying.

but dont worry, you dont need to stick your foot out to step up and defend people to the death. especially when your the second inline putting your foot out to trip people up and let them fall off a cliff edge .. to their death.

maybe not try stepping infront of people pretending to defend. but instead just step back a bit, especially if your armour consists of a wearable billboard for an altnet

---

can i just ask one simple question which might clear up the opposition between us and make me understand you better

why do you hate blockchains soo much with your pruning crusade and altnet campaigns


what do you have against satoshi's 13 years old invention, which has got you so riled up to be everything against blockchains?

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it unless your disagreement is rooted in the oppression of my own rights.

However, I've changed my mind about the ban request. This forum reminds me the significance of freedom it constantly seeks, whether that's from discussions or from the project it's dedicated to. I believe that your right to talk, even propagandistically, is more important than the actual content of your talk.

And I'm not locking this, 'cause it'll contradict the above. Whoever wants to add something is welcomed to.

the reasons for wanting me banned is because you dont like my comments about altnets, scaling, bips used for mandatory forks.. and thus i am allowed to defend myself about the reasons.

even the 71* post deletions you have pretended are post deletions related to posts which content should disappear fully, rather than merged posts. and i responded to defend that i did not have 71* post deletions which content needed to be removed

as for not liking me entering a topic to derail it into another subject.
i dislike when you enter topics discussing bitcoin scaling, where you interject to advertise an altnet.
i dislike when someone wants to talk about blockchains and again you mention getting them into altnets (that have no blockchain)

here is one example
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockchain-developer-5364836
a user wants to learn about blockchains and become a blockchain developer. and blackhat instead advertises an altnet that has no blockchain

if still unsure of examples or want more. or just want to look at the contradictions,  there is a search function at the top. use it and put
LN lightning
into the search criteria and put
blackhatcoiner
into the user. click search and see how many topics are not about altnets/lightning but where blackhat has mentioned LN

funny part is. a good PR guy would not see my& others&others dislike of their altnet as a cause to cry, get angry, abusive over and threaten to ban. instead a good PR guy would wonder why are there users that dislike the altnet, and then think of ways to make the altnet better.

*oh its no longer 71 its 74.. and those 3 extra are merges, not content removal

---

my issues with altnetters is not that LN exists, my issues are:
altnetters saying their alternate network IS bitcoin
altnetters saying bitcoiners shouldnt buy coffee on bitcoin
altnetters saying bitcoin shouldnt scale because altnet is where people should transact
altnetters pretending its 1999 days of floppydisks and dial-up when its obviously 2022 in era of 4tb hard drives and fibre
altnetters saying bitcoin is limited in transactions, when its them imposing the limit not change
altnetters saying bitcoin is expensive to transact on, when its them imposing the fees not become cheap
altnetters saying people dont need to be fullnoders, and to prune off the blockchain because the blockchain is meaningless
altnetters saying pruning and only storing UTXO related to 'your wallet' is still helpful to the network

as well as all the past stuff where things are being promised as scaling solutions. but never settle,finalise with 100% guarantee.

and if anyone hates the grammar usage of buzzwords like altnet fangirls.
i did not start the buzzword games.
bitcoiners that want bitcoin scaling got called "bigblockers" first.. so fair play, lets play your games
if you dont like being called names.. note the irony

Not in this thread though. Pick your fights.


https://xkcd.com/386/

This is another problem with franky. You start talking about something and he tries to change the subject with his derailing bad-stats. I demand from pooya87 and franky1 to stop going off-topic here and if they both want to continue their talk in the thread dedicated to franky (if pooya87 hasn't given up already). Otherwise I'll have to lock it.

Again, I'm not talking about merged posts. They do count as deleted, but aren't those the reason I've started this thread.

The direction in which this thread has gone makes it no longer suitable for Meta. We are no longer discussing whether or not franky1 should/could be banned. The topics now are the Lightning Network, BIPs, and SegWit. It can't be moved to Bitcoin Technical boards, because franky1 is banned from posting there. Maybe locking it would be the best thing to do as there is obviously no support for banning the person. Would be nice to see him calm down a bit though and spread his wings.   

1. nodes not supporting segwit do get trimmed off blocks without the weight. its why a block has to have separate txid for the different formats, because otherwise a block validation would glitch/reject for the older nodes, also those older nodes not supporting segwit, cant then be used as IBD seeders for other peers as their stripped blocks wont 'compute' if given to a segwit node.

yep segwit nodes which connect to non segwit node, strip a block to pass it to a non-segwit node.(the backward compatibility premiss) but a non segwit node cant then relay that block to a segwit node as its been stripped
core devs pretend 'its all good' your still part of the network' yet your not, you become less part of the relay/propagation network. so thats why that was mentioned to make people aware they are less involved in the relay/propagation/IBD support of other peers.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/91648 - he wrote segwit code in bitgo so i think you should respect his knowledge

same goes for pruning. if you prune your nodes blockchain. you dont have the blocks to then provide IBD support to other peers. making you less part of the decentralised security backbone of the network. and treated as a leacher not a seeder. again ifnorming people of how features affect their involvement in the network protocol is actually a good thing to advise, not something that should be remained hidden and swept under the carpet like its meaningless.

2. before august 2017 it was said that segwit was soft and that it didnt cause a fork and that its safe to use, the debate explained that people cant just use segwit softly until its actually activated and majority support it via hardfork..
the end result is that devs decided to not include the key creation/wallet payment code of segwit until after activation, rather than include it before activation with the other segwit code to prepare for segwit.. because they acknowledged the anyonecanspend problem would cause a problem if anyone tried to make a segwit transaction before activation via a hard fork.

oh and please note. im the only one thats backing up my opinions by code, bips and references from devs.. others however can only reference their chums social thoughts on personality opinions(boring social drama)

You can and should ignore trolls but you can't and shouldn't ignore misinformation because it is misleading anyone who would come upon said posts.
For example misinformation is the only reason why even today there are people who think signatures in a SegWit transaction are "removed" from the blockchain! Or for more than a year people were scared of using the new SegWit addresses since someone kept repeating a buzzword called "anyone-can-spend".

the bitcoin code and the bips refer to a block number where a split would happen to start the segwit activation process. and guess what magic blockheight BCH started at...
.. ill leave you to answer that when you have a lightbulb moment.

you can also check bitcoins blockchain for the flag day. by looking at the flags in the header and seeing when certain flags reached their needed amount. this is available in bitcoins block data.

for those that dont want to read hard data, i also supplied a nice lil graph that shows the flags in image form, for nice simple viewing..
shame the fable story tellers that can only shout "wrong because troll" cant show same block data or put it into a nice graph for easy reading.. so atleast dont blame me for not trying. but maybe consider the other side hasnt tried, but has cried

---

note:
by the way when i get something wrong i can admit it.
it has been 4 years. and memory is what memory is.
so i checked if i was right or wrong about the 148+91 bips.. as some have been demanding i retract my statement because their opinion is that 148+91 were not used. so after checking. they indeed were used.

 but here is my admission. it was bip91+148 not bip148+91
i simply got them in the wrong order.
91 succeeded at block 477120 (23rd july)
148 succeeded at block  478,484 (aug1st)
which because of the bait switch of demanding pools flag for segwit. near 99% of pools were making new flag blocks, and BCH didnt get its first(old) block that caused the split until 478558(august 1st)
they were not seeing any old flag blocks for 74 blocks

what you also might find relevant and factual. is why would pools fear bip91+148. well they both indicate mandatory rejecting of old blocks. why would they fear this if most users were not using these softwares that incorporated the bips.
because the NYA nodes(merchants, exchanges) WERE using software that would reject pools old blocks. this software was the UASF.

pools didn't need all users to run new software to activate a fork. all it needed was the commercial services that allow pools to spend rewards with to use software that will reject blocks that dont fit the commercial services designated rules.
other users didnt need to upgrade due to "backward compatibility" of new stuff.

anyway.. to boil the events down..
the blue line in the graph on previous page was bip91(NYA) and the red line was the segwit
to anyone that still does not want to believe that 148 and 91 were used..
may i refer them to some more prominent bitcoiners they might believe
ill refer you to theymos https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/august-1-bip148-preparedness-2017191
ill refer you to sipa https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/56994

so if you want to debate that 91+148 were never used.. then argue with them first

though it seems theymos has been maybe a slight instigator in some peoples belief that a chain split didnt happen.. even though bch did happen and is active today as proof.

but hey, at least im linking bips, block numbers and references to other notable members that say that bip91+148 were used..

now lets see the ignorant 'it didnt happen' show their proofs that forks didnt happen and bips were not used.. or lets see them shout and scream and cry "wrong because troll"

have a good day. goodluck

You ask to discuss about the block data.
Does Bitcoin blockchain "know" about BCH splitting off? I don't think so. According to bitcoin's blockchain BCH doesn't exist.
That BIP activation and the split is recorded probably on BCH chain, which doesn't matter in this discussion, since we talk about bitcoin, not altcoins.
So, I may be wrong, since I don't know the things that good, but imho you are also getting into the discussion things that should not be there.

It's all about how one looks at the things.

the stats noted in a earlier post of my deleted messages.. do not refer to a word count (your suggestion of message contents not removed).. they refer to posts deleted. POST count.. not word count

when i make 4 posts in a topic and 3 get merged into the first. it counts as 3 deleted posts..
 it does not count as 0 posts deleted and 0+- word count changes (your silly thinking)

---

the blue line is the NYA(148) people agreed to the NYA meaning the blueline(148) reached its threshold and activated.
part of 148 is to ignore old blocks on august 1st. and guess what happened on august first BCH
this split, by old nodes seeing the old blocks and new nodes not.. meant that the new nodes seen only 100% blocks signalling for segwit(91) redline, whilst old nodes forked to BCH

wait.. let me check does the bch blockchain exist.. pooya thinks it doesnt.. so i must be wrong... ..
...
ok im right BCH does exist. so pooya is wrong.. ahh that was easy

if you want to pretend there was no chain split.. then you are ignoring the existence of BCH
if you want to ignore that 148 and 91 happened then you are ignoring all blockdata of the 2017 time period that contains the mentioned flags in those bips.

so instead of shouting a narrative of a story you were told by a buddy.. try using blockdata and also actual bips..
.. dont deviate by showing other bips for other events. dont rationalise your story with other events social lack of controversy.

you may not like me. but you cant honestly be saying that the blockchains immutable ledger is lying
.. it was a nice try on your part to try and defends your buddies versions of stories they also heard. fables usually pass around like campfire stories.

but try to stick to hard data and reference-able  code.. rather than stories.

seems out of all those that talk of versions of events in 2017. i am the only one that has shown the graphs that reference the block flags and referenced the split causing BCH and the bips used to do it..
everyone else has just been screaming "wrong coz misinforming troll"

i do find it funny how you think there was no split in august 2017.. .. now that is misinformation.. seems your story telling made a whole altcoin disappear.. oh wait, its still there

your entitled to think im a toll. but atleast do the research now and again, it might teach you something that counters the buddy narrative

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

franky1 was responding to a post saying that the large number of deleted posts will get him banned because of "spam and trolling". He explained that most of his deleted posts are not "spam and trolling" but merged multiposts. I think that's a fairly reasonable response and has factual basis.


You can't have it both ways. If you really honestly think franky1 is a troll, the best way to defeat him is to not engage him. If you want to argue with him, that's fine, but you gotta take some responsibility for the ensuing chaos. This is even more jarring in a thread like this where LN discussion should be off topic.

Trust me, I've fed many a troll over the years. Never led to anything positive.

Exactly! That's why we, referring to off-chain supporters, realize how things work and try to improve the system without having to enforce anybody to change the rules they follow. The scalability problem is rather political than technical. It requires a smart solution that doesn't intensifies our political differences.

Then it's the half truth. He gets his posts merged as I've said, but we can't consider those deleted... The content of those posts still exists. I was referring to those that have been removed for good.

You mean trying to clear up the reckless balderdash of the alleged troll? Yeah. Someone has to fight misinformation, apparently.

It's not a lie. He does get a lot of posts merged by mods and those count as multiple deleted posts. It's also quite possible that if you report franky1's post for trolling and your report is marked as "good", his post was deleted for some other reason.


Let's be fair, half of this merit (no pun intended) should go to the people feeding the alleged troll.

I've already made it clear that I don't support a ban, but hats off to franky1 here for making factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning in a thread complaining about his factually incorrect off topic posts about Lightning.

*Chef's kiss emoji*

For second layers, a consensus is not needed -- as long as the second layer is compatible with the rules, a second layer is possible, even if no one agrees with the implementation of the second layer.

I think franky1 has his own way of thinking about how to approach problems. This is likely different than many other people's ways to approach problems. I think it is franky1's goal to change people's minds via his posts. I cannot say that franky1 changed my mind, but I can say that I thought about things I might not have necessarily thought about had I not read his posts.

It turns out it is. They keep deleting his posts years now, but he hasn't be banned (even temporarily) for once.

Mods aren't robots. They can understand if my post is part of a discussion that has now ended. I don't have to quote/mention him. Just replying to a post that doesn't exist anymore is enough to get mine deleted as well.

But, really, what does that mean? Alright, so we both have a common goal. However, each want it to succeed in another way. I personally see it succeeding as long as there's consensus for something whether that's big blocks or second layers. Franky disrespects that. He wants us to do as he says. He can't comprehend that what has distinguished Bitcoin is this significant detail.

We all knows that's a lie. Yeah, they delete the individually made posts, but merge their content into one, so nothing is removed from your text. If you want to make another point don't double-post. Use the horizontal rule instead.

There have been many of your posts deleted due to trolling.

what you might find interesting. is the majority of my deleted messages are not due to bans/trolling . but due to the fact that i have tried separating my posts into separate talking points. but forum rules dont like separate posts, they prefer walls of text, and so merge posts together.

to avoid having notifications of 'merged posts' i do more frequently just 'wall of text' to avoid such annoyances..
but to clarify. this forum prefers walls of texts. rather than separate posts per point being made.

my 'deleted message' stats are actually more proof of wanting to separate my talking points for clear reading, but the forum wanting to 'wall of text'

just today alone i earned 3 more "deleted messages" because the forum mods decided to merge 4 posts into 1 wall of text
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.58920210.

so dont say i didnt try

Right. franky1, from what I can tell, is an OG bitcoiner. I think he probably wants to see bitcoin succeed.

franky1 has a particular opinion. This opinion is true for all threads that relate to the subject his opinion is about. There is no reason for franky1 to keep his opinion limited to a certain number of threads just because he disagrees with other forum members.

People disagreeing with you is a part of life. The fact that franky1 disagrees with you, is not a microaggression. You can try to change his mind if you wish.