Pretty sure the only "
war" going on here is 'deluded people' versus 'reality'. Reality always wins.
doomad loves low acceptance rate he hates super majority. he loves contention. he things the only options is to fork networks where people have to create altcoins. where only core can control policy. where no one should ask core to do something for the community
In the sense that devs are leaving policy matters for those securing the chain to decide for themselves, sure. In any other sense, you're talking out of your arse.
You're the one asking devs to dictate policy by requesting that they implement rules to
set the network policy so that it would prevent people transacting in ways you don't approve of (except it wouldn't). You then argue that Core have too much power to set network policy and yet your solution to that perceived problem is to give them
more power to set policy!? What is wrong with your brain? Besides which, devs have no desire to become arbiters of what constitutes "
acceptable use". You're just spouting populist nonsense.
there are many opcodes that can be changed.
Then go ahead and change them. You claim everyone feels the same way you do, so surely people would run code with your preferred changes to these opcodes. If you believe Core's product isn't good enough and that your changes are undeniably better,
make the code already. You act like you have all the answers, but you're just an obnoxious gasbag who won't lift a finger to enact the change he claims "
everyone wants". You claim Core aren't doing a good enough job, but you won't do ANY job. You can literally say whatever you like because you know you'll never have to prove it in practice. And that's precisely why you'll never code anything. Because if you did produce code, it would reveal you as the utter fraud that you are. Because all you know how to do is spout populist nonsense.
On the one hand we have a team of devs who produce code that people freely choose to run. On the other hand, we have a whiny malcontent who produces endless pages of whiny bullshit and absolutely nothing of value. Take a wild guess as to which one is going to have more influence on the outcome of this situation. The malcontent could change things if he had a competitive product of his own. But he only has pages upon pages of crybaby screeching.
the idiot brigade have pretended that bitcoin was always soft weak and open to abuse. yet if they dared even try to bloat a legacy transaction they would learn the hard way that bitcoin was not always like this.
if they even dared research outside of the spoonfed narrative they all recite and echo to each other like a cult. they would finally learn a thing or two about what actually happened, when it happened, how it was caused and how it can be fixed.
You've been researching for years and still have nothing tangible to show for it. You can spend all your life forming
opinions based on what you
think you've learned, but if you don't spend at least a small amount of time and effort putting what you've learned
into practice, you'll never accomplish any of your goals.
Telling people to "do research" and then do nothing else other than asking for devs to do stuff for them is weak advice at best (particularly if you've spent the last who-knows-how-many-years insulting the devs who you're now asking for assistance from).
What I'd suggest is that people do their research AND THEN
ACT UPON THEIR FINDINGS.
Run some code once you know what it does.
Make some code. DO
SOMETHING. If people aren't willing to act or make any actual changes based on what they've learned, they'll likely just turn into bitter, feeble, whiny sad-sacks, like franky1, who spend their entire, pathetic lives achieving absolutely nothing (and having just one of those around here is more than enough already, thank you).
so when a new opcode is desired devs PROPOSE an opcode and code it. and while in review the network users can download a copy fo also self review and when they flag they are ready to use it. that flag then shows consensus readiness that its at a safe enough level of network readiness to activate the opcode. and the opcode goes live knowing enough of the network is ready to validate the new feature. as what is suppose to happen.
Social contract. Unenforceable. That process can easily be ignored. You can "
suppose" all you like, but it's beyond apparent that you've completely lost all grip on reality.
Reality happens. Your demented suppositions don't.
Not only is it impossible to force someone to adhere to such a process, there isn't even an incentive to do so. Aside from which, backwards-compatible changes can easily be activated if only a small portion of the network wish to use them (If 5 people agree to have burgers, putting ketchup on 2 of the burgers is still 5 people having burgers, ketchup is opt-in and doesn't require a majority).
And, as ordinals demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt, external third-party scripts have even less developmental oversight and can be coded by anyone and hosted anywhere to allow anyone to inject just about anything into the blockchain. Protocol be damned. And it's nothing to do with "soft rules" either, because people are injecting stuff into other blockchains which don't have any of the "soft rules" that franky1 bitches about.
It's all just pie-in-the-sky franky1 populist drivel.
Cry more.
You're trying to put it in such a way to make people think these NFT actually have value (which they don't). So how can they lose value if they don't have any value? And another thing: Bitcoin doesn't promise anything to anyone. It doesn't promise you will earn anything or even keep the money you invested. Theoretically, Bitcoin can go to 0 any moment. So, saying Bitcoin should keep some promise to the NFT owners is simply laughable. 
