Topic: controversial / possibly dangerous proposals for bitcoin (Read 354 times)

finally

seeing as the topic is not about "franky" because franky(me) is not a core dev
i see no point why doomad wanted to meander the topic into thinking this is all about "franky" then switch to saying its got nothing to do with "franky" thus ending his own social drama sideshow debate (thankfully)
nor that i am some totalitarian core(centre) which risks the network with my proposals.. yet then wastes days then proving his own theorm incorrect.  by stating that im not even trying to be
and so doomad might finally get it and go quiet for a couple months until his amnesia kicks in and starts acting like he hasnt had this repeated epiphany before

so thanks.. i guess.. or i should just say enjoy your time off
(maybe for more than a few months than usual),

now back to the topic

let reign it back in to the topic of bitcoins risks and dangers, and proposals of such seeing as bitcoin is not some self coding AI and is actually made by code changes of core proposals(highlight: not franky code/proposals as just loudly proven)

lets discuss the central point of failure that is core with its proposals moderation, dev discussion moderation, code merge moderation, which in of itself is a risk/danger .. aswell as proposals that have and could risk issues for bitcoin which they have or could propose

(no more sideshow social drama comedy required, but thanks for the commercial sponsored sideshow)

You're going to have to show your work, there.  I'm not sure how your words are meant to prove anything about me.  You're in this topic right now saying that you feel like only Core is allowed and in 2016 you were saying the opposite of that.  Hence the funny.  And I'm the one telling you to make the alternative.  So clearly I think alternatives can coexist if I'm telling you to stop being such a pussy and build one.

One of these days you'll learn to read.



Translation:  You're not going to propose a viable alternative.  You're going to whine incessantly forever.  You have nothing to offer and never will.  Got it.

until they are used as a weapon. an empty promise, never to be met.. a promise of never letting bitcoin scale because they made a flawed subnetwork bridge to bitcoin for people to "offboard to as the solution". even when they know that sub network is not going to solve anything.

 just being there as the option then disrupts bitcoin growth. the distraction played out by this buggy network become the issue of preventing bitcoin growth

that said there are multiple other subnetwork bridge networks to bitcoin which have more utility, but the whole stupidity of being left in limbo, waiting for the one endorsed by core, becomes the problem

its time to just call it.. T.O.D(time of death) to that promise wasted subnetwork.. that endorsed subnetwork has failed to launch in 6-8 years where other subnetwork bridges to bitcoin have succeeded in more utility in a year. which shows how badly directed the development was of the core endorsements

I am not technically knowledgeable but off the top of my head I think the most controversial proposals for Bitcoin would be any proposal that would compromise Bitcoin's decentralization, fixed supply, and all Bitcoins being equal.

As to second layers, they are normally mere options for Bitcoin users. They don't necessarily tinker with Bitcoin's fundamentals codes. They may come and go. People have the option not to adopt them without leaving or abandoning Bitcoin itself.

having social networks with a form or economic penalty require enough features and desire to use the network for people to want to buy membership

there are too many free social networks .. so trying to get one that costs a 2000 sat membership fee(although cheap) is still a wall in of itself for entry desire.

plus even though its low. it then becomes not much of a penalty to still spam

this is why if you can make an algo that does recognise bad actions. such as posting revenge porn or racial topics. instead of deducting 1 sat. most social media would ban user for 1-14days or perma ban

after all
losing 1 sat is not as harmful as not being able to interact with friends/people of common interests

idea's of economic penalty only work when their was a default economic cost baked in that was acceptable in the first place

thanks for the link
and proving you sre like a certain group of people that cant envision alternatives co-existing on same network...

case and point proven.

thanks for proving how you dont understand a consensus(byzantine generals solution) that allows decentralised brands to co exist under a unifying ruleset where they can all propose and either get accepted or not

oh. also proves how you are not even the first influencer to chant that narrative, thus your not even original in your thoughts..

your mantra is not original not the first time i heard it.. yet is the same boring centralist ideology of some people that core control and prefer to kick the alternatives off the network and ban their nodes from being peers(aka REKT) before any change of their proposals gaining any traction on the network

so thanks for proving my point

maybe one day you will come up with something original rather than just being an echo chamber of centralisation idealism

..
it is funny how you also cant tell the difference between core vs bitcoin or bitcoin vs core. (which shows how centralised you adore and love the brand)
especially when you think i am against bitcoin.. when i mention the flaws of stuff CORE devs done..
if you cant tell the difference between my poles at CORE. vs the bitcoin network.. then you have really lost the plot and completely misunderstood what decentralised blockchain networks are and do and should be

but it seem you dont care. you just want to defend core like a teachers pet.. even though core devs admit to their positions and roles and how core has become a central point of failure

anyways.
i am going to continue talking reviewing and critiquing core because.. heres a secret you dont realise.
bitcoin is not self creating AI
bitcoin is wrote by core since ~2014+

so they need to be reviewed and critiqued all the time to keep them from thinking they have yo much power that they abuse it too often
they need to be watched and reviewed and told when they are overstepping

meanwile you can cry about me all you like
thing is.. while you cry about me. you are just being a social drama queen not caring about the network . just wanting to pretend you are a centurion guard hoping to one day get paid for ass kissery

people need to know about core .. the devs involved in bitcoin.
but you keep crying that you dont like the fact that i am being frank. even though i have made it as obvious as possible that yes i am being frank to you and to everyone.

im not hiding it in any way. i have made it as clear as possible that i am frank with everyone. i dont want recruits or ass kissers and i dont give none either.

what actually matters is we as network users review, critique and ensure the devs of the network are not abusing their position. and try to find ways to lesson their power over the network.. because.. thats what decentralisation is about

Yep, no surprise there.  More evasive deflections from the spineless coward.  How absurd that he's so vehemently adamant he's right, yet he can't even say what code he actually believes is the right code.  It's hilarious.

Seriously.  If you want an alternative, the onus is on you to present an argument in favour of that alternative.  Not an empty wishlist.  Not a pipe-dream.  Not your usual fanciful delusions.  Present a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE and a REASONED and LOGICAL argument in favour of it.  You can't just repeatedly scream "CORE BAD" and expect new options to magically appear in front of you.  You're living in cloud-cuckoo-land.



No, they left because their ideas are fundamentally incompatible with this blockchain and they were never going to succeed in implementing them here.  Just like your ideas are fundamentally incompatible and you're never going to succeed in getting them implemented here.  And while I might think their ideas are wholly misguided, I still have more respect for them than I'll ever have for you.  At least they're achieving something on their other networks.  They found the people who agree with them and they built a network together.  That's how it's meant to be.  They stood by their convictions and they acted upon them.  Kudos to 'em.  

That's far more productive than your approach, which boils down to "let's spend every day screeching about how much you hate the network you're on, even though it's never going to function like you want it to, when you could easily use another network which does work the way you'd like".  Like you're threatening to take your ball and go home, except you never actually leave.  Everyone knows you're never going to *do* anything about it (aside from whine incessantly).  

It would behoove you to join them on their "other networks", because they're taking your preferred path to "scaling".  But I want to make it abundantly clear that "dOuBlE fAsTeR hUrR dUrR" is not the accepted definition of "scaling" (in air-quotes so pronounced you can practically hear them) when it comes to Bitcoin.  That's a considerable threat to decentralisation and something we won't abide by here.

---

I'm also going to quote this absolute gem from 2016 because it makes franky1 look like a complete and total hypocrite:


Maybe he got so busy obsessing about telling others what they "should" be doing that he forgot to do it himself?  

//EDIT:  this one is comedy gold too, given the current conversation. 

^                           ^
idiot knows he(with his declining number of chums) will do all to REKT campaign any implementation that wants to offer proposals that are not core led/endorsed/sponsored
so why ask for things he already knows is going to be slaughtered by him and his chums of centralist adoration

its like asking someone who owns a dog to make his dog poop right infront of a dog warden in a park where dog poop comes with a fine..
who would agree to do something soo obviously a waste of time just to make a warden feel happy about his job...!

he is asking for the obvious knowing the result... just to chest beat that his ass kissing chums are toing his party line efforts to keep core in power and then pretend "no one wants X they only want core"

again. him thinking it proves no one wants decentralisation.. when in fact its actually proves his censorship totalitarianism and moderation and REKT campaigns is still actively keeping a central power from decentralising thus hiding and preventing decentralisation to a point where it appears there is no desire for such

and no doomad dont reply with silly stories that distribution of the same code =decentralisation....
same code, same data = distribution. not decentralisation

..
dont you know that many dev groups have just gave up trying to fight core and just made other networks to avoid core hierarchy
even as far back as vitalik when core first popped up as a brand
(rhetorical.. of course you know. its how you want it. people to fork off to altcoins and see who follows rather than offer alternative brands to core proposal moderation, on bitcoin blockchain)

,,
here is the big picture for you
while you think this is a game of cult recruitment where you think i should be recruiting my own cult to counter your cult..
i dont need to i dont want ass-kissing nor recruits. i prefer independence and decentralisation(people figuring things out for themselves and verifying it with actual hard data and not social drama)

and even within your own cultish followers who you presumed had your beliefs tattooed to them. they are now getting the confidence to break away and question your beliefs, and finding out all by themselves their own answers, answers where your narrative is the one in the wrong
yep you are slowly losing your cult following one by one.. and as you say i had to do nothing.. well apart from just asking people to do their own research and think independently and not ask to be spoonfed

i dont need to play your cultish games. people will eventually do their own research

It sounds more like you don't stand by your convictions.  Too ashamed of your own client to share, perhaps?  Are you still running that "Emergent Consensus" stuff which has literally zero chance of ever being a thing in Bitcoin? You're not going to say, are you.   

Also, your plan of action still involves neither a plan nor action.  Aside from whining and fantasy wishlists, what are you actually doing in order to get what you want?  You hate everything that everyone else seems to be content with.  If everyone else is satisfied with the status quo and you don't approve, why should others make a change to appease you?  This is a "you" problem.  You need to take action in order to effect change.

But whine some more and keep achieving nothing.  You're doing great!   

Loser.

funny part is

core have a hierarchy. they promote people into power via their hierarchy.
bitcoin is not self coding AI. bitcoin is wrote by devs
so stop underplaying cores involvement.

core is the only ones made into the governorship powerhouse to transform proposals into changes of the rules that ultimately get activated via their organised moderation policies where they only accept proposals that fir their roadmap

just look at the same names appearing all the time:
- the same main names in the list of contributors of each release.*
- who moderates the mailing list
- who moderates the tech category on this forum
- who moderates the BIPs
- who has merge capability...

*only exceptions to this is when they list a newbie low level volunteer to spell check a comment or translate documentation, to appear decentralised

heck even Wladimir van der Laan has admitted core is a central point of failure.. and he was the lead maintainer..

oh and if i was so controlling.. i would offer my node code out to others
but by my lack of offering it out shows im not trying to recruit people into any scheme of control
also im not asking people to stay hooked, addicted, religiously idolising one small group of gods
also i am not trying to get people to follow me. i keep telling people to become more independent more decentralised by.. for one thing DOING THEIR OWN RESEARCH outside the club hose echo chamber you have put yourself and your buddies in

i know you dont understand independent review, critiquing, verification. but you could for once try learning these concepts

That's a really long-winded way of admitting that you don't understand the meaning of "cooperation" (most likely because you are incapable of working with others, being an obnoxious, self-absorbed, ego-maniacal narcissist who is constantly trying to force people to do things they seemingly don't want to do), but I'm glad we're finally there.

Core don't "control" anything. They're just an unaffiliated gathering of people who come and go.  Some stay longer than others.  And while they're working together, they have a strong propensity to produce code that other people like to use.  

You, on the other hand, have a talent for making noise.  You don't produce anything constructive.  You don't contribute anything viable.  You just whine like a sad puppy when no one agrees with you.  Your ideas are unworkable.  You will never get what you want.  All of your efforts are utterly futile.  You are a toxic cancer that no one has found a cure for yet.

I understand that's a difficult concept for you to grasp.  But perhaps if you spent less time coming up with half-baked pipe-dreams where you try to order people around and fail to make them do things they don't want to do, you might actually learn to respect the opinions of others.  Instead of simply ignoring them completely and only focusing solely on what you want all the time.  Maybe grow as a person and stop being such a bitter and resentful little troll.

Or just keep doing what you're doing.  We all know that's what's going to happen anyway.

@doomad

you blindman
its not about reassigning devs..

its to stop treating the core devs as the sole gods ..
its about allowing MORE devs to write code without OTHER devs being moderated out or REKT

its about not keeping core as a central point of failure via their current model of moderation

you silly fool keep thinking that only the select few devs should control bitcoin.. where you think the only option of decentralisation is breaking core up into smaller groups of the SAME guys!!!(facepalm)

get a clue.. there is a wide range of talent OUTSIDE of the core group.. i know you refuse to acknowledge it because it goes against your fandom/religion.
but for once try to look outside your small group idol admiration of core devs.  

you are soo entranched in the mindset that core=bitcoin and bitcoin=core you cant see passed your mindset

i know you to well.. you keep saying that no one should be telling core devs what to do. no one should critique or review them or Nack them. where its should only be prime core devs that Nack outsiders views
where you think no one should have veto power or vote power to stop core devs from writing new upgrades. or consent core devs code into activation .. but the whole point of a decentralised network is that no fixed group should have control to do what they like unrestricted and even against the wider communities desires for the network

you think "community" is the core devs
where they should be sole decision makers not user nodes or miners.

you are the totalitarian admirer

EVERY post i make on the subject is not about the religion YOU beleive in
                                                                            v
                                                    (core dev centric or death)

my opinion has always been that there is no "one team" but lots of teams. all on same playing field level. all working on bitcoin. (byzantine generals)
and all able to promote proposals and its the unity and cooperation that the best idea's flourish. not the idea's vetted by a core'poral

where all teams share proposals and evolve proposals into things the whole community want and need.. where lots of brands code up those proposals into many node brands and then alow general uses CHOICE of brand and also choice to vote if a proposal goes forward or not, based on desire.. not force..
where it also allows proposed ruleset readiness by all brands prior to activation

unlike your preference of mandated activation of proposals only offered in a core roadmap inspired by business sponsored/bribed core devs. where core dont require other brands to be code-ready(upgraded), thus downgrading them as non full nodes at activation by pushing them to just "unrecognised: default isvalid" new core features. until other brands catch up

fun fact
even doomads best bud blackhat recently started to gain confidence to ask the prime questions that go against doomad beleifs. and got answers from the main coder of segwit that align with what i have been saying for years. but goes against doomads narrative
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/116327/do-non-segwit-nodes-reject-segwit-transactions-with-invalid-signature (angelo is blackhatcoiner, Pieter Wuille is sipa(segwit main coder))

other buddies of doomad also gained confidence to go against doomads "soft" mindset https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/miner-activated-hard-fork-mahf-5433973

doomad, you seem to be losing your cult and i didnt even ass kiss them.. it just took them years to wake up by themselves and start asking questions outside of your beliefs.

i dont need to control people, i dont need to recruit/as kiss people. i dont need to hand out policy for them to follow. (unlike your preference)
i just tell people to be decentralised, independent and self verify AKA do their own research

Since you're clearly not going to do anything in terms of creating new code (all mouth, no trousers), where is all this new dev talent meant to come from, exactly? 

Or did you want to personally oversee reassignment of the existing talent pool, with you deciding which devs should go to which client, like the relentless little nazi fuck you are?

Yes, proposals that go against the main ideals of Bitcoin, such as allowing chargebacks, increasing the number of coins that can be mined, and changing from a proof-of-work (POW) to a proof-of-stake (POS) consensus mechanism, are generally considered dangerous as they can undermine the decentralized and trustless nature of the Bitcoin network. These proposals have been made in the past but have not been widely adopted due to the potential negative impact they could have on the network and its users.

Anything which goes against the main ideals which make bitcoin what it is are very dangerous proposals, over the years users have proposed all kind of dangerous changes which fortunately have not occurred and we hope they never do, for example we have heard proposals about allowing to chargeback transactions with the excuse of recovering the money which is stolen by scammers, increasing the number of coins which will be mined and lately many users have proposed for bitcoin to go from POW to POS.

i must laugh
@doomad
try to read the 2017 blockdata of the flags
compare the flags to the codes that inspire the flags

its immutable so even i cant edit it..
the flags speak for themselves as to the events that transpired. heck you were even given the data in a pretty picture format which you keep forgetting to look at and realise where you go wrong.. oh and for years core devs have said it was a UAHF. not the 3 different narratives you play out and confuse people with where it just shows you have not done any research, checks on event, nor understand what things actually mean
but its your flip flop bait and switch narrative style. so no surprise

you have been told to look many many times. but you have not bothered.
heck the buddies you hand your crap scripts to, to repeat.. like a chior singing group..  are actually seeing passed your blind scripts and looking for themselves and they are noticing your narrative is the false one

oh and your silly screen shot.. is not people writing their own node. its copying the CORE code

guess you dont know the difference between a diverse network of different brands wrote in different languages.. but writing their own code to meed certain rulesets.. vs just taking core code.

oh and yes i have seen your REKT campaigns of treating any brand that is not core as an enemy and not part of the diverse variety of a decentralised network

.. and yes YOU have said "make you own brand" but you then emphasise that people should fork the blockchain off to an altcoin and then see who folows...
which is not how the consensus network works. even though you think consensus is about rejecting blocks and nodes opposing core roadmap before core activates, to ensure core activates unopposed..

your preference is not how consensus worked 2009-2016. but your prefered method is the way YOU want it to work now even if it is centralising

I've still not seen a single person other than you on this entire forum who believes that actually happened.  Anyone remotely sane understands the reason why some nodes were disconnected and that was to prevent replay attacks.  Repeating your delusions for years on end does not magically make them true.  Consult with your psychiatrist to adjust your dosage.



Then make one already, you whiny, impotent manbaby.  No one is stopping you.  Code what you like and publish it here on the forum.  Use whatever review process you like to approve or deny code.  Oh wait, you're never going to.  Because all you do it bitch and complain forever, because no one cares about your awful, totalitarian ideals.  Everything you've ever proposed is dangerous for Bitcoin.

I'll even give you a hand if you're too stupid to figure it out:



You can call it FascistCore.  Best of luck.

We don't need protection from any threats considering the nature of bitcoin which is based on public power and thus very hard to take down easily. However, the fact that we need to "evolve" it is equally and rigorously true in the long run. What I mean is, we got a code for the bitcoin in the form of blockchain being its highway however, this code is same and running since it's inception with few forks now and then which were also only the additions to overcome the transaction speeds at the time. Now things are moving even faster and we need to protect it's true nature by evolving it up to the benchmark of current needs and desires of investors. Since it's public based ledger, it has to be checked time to time for its fulfilment as per the users.

proposals should not be "procesed"/filered/moderated within one brand/group that has all the power of moderation at every level and is also then made to be the main reference client. as thats centralisation

if there is to be moderations. let the moderators not be the same guys that also control the code merges of the centralised code brand. make it independent and not incentivised censorship mechanism to push one agenda forward and ignore all other opportunities

there SHOULD also be multiple full node brands. and they are all offered the ability to make and SHARE proposals. where they all offer a implementation so that people can stick with their favoured brand but have a choice that includes proposed code. and when there is a majority then it activates knowing there is a safe tolerance of alot of peer nodes with the actual proposed code able to actually verify a new ruleset, without having silly "isvalid" defaults for unupgraded nodes to bypass verification

the issues with relying on all proposals being filtered through one brand moderation and developer group, is the other brands become second tier nodes, following as an after effect rather then being at the same level as a certain brand

EG
imagine there was a new proposal by any brand. and all brands are show it. then all brands develop their brands version with the proposal and a same version without the proposal(flag default on or off)

brand C 25.0.P(bug fix code + proposal code + flag default on)
brand C 25.0.1(bug fix code + flag default off)
where P is brand C's node with proposal code included. and .0.1 is just the normal bug fix version without proposal

brand L 25.0.P
brand L 25.0.1
where P is brand L's node with proposal code included. and .0.1 is just the normal bug fix version without proposal

it also helps to have 2 codebases per version..  if a proposal is buggy, malicious, not voted to activate. the brands can continue work on the 0.01 versions without having to re write/undo.remove their proposal code if it is not activated

and they can instead just work on the next proposal. without having to undo code  to get back to status quo

this then allows them to not be soo determined to push or force activations and instead easily say "ok people dont like that idea lets listen to what they do want and tweak things to meet community need".. instead of it took 2 years to write this and will take another 6 months to remove the code to get back to uncludgy status. so we need to force an activation., purely out of time irritations"

The issue is mainly with the way things are handle... Sometimes it feels like kindergarten children who aren't sure who is right or wrong fighting over crayon.
They should handle things the way responsible adults in National assemblies handle things by introducing a set of Bitcoin Principles or Rules that are not to be violated whenever they are proposing ideas or building things on Bitcoin. There will be less conflict and more harmony if everyone is proposing ideas that are according to the set principles the Bitcoin system is based on. If everyone agrees that this is not about changing or deviating from the hard-coded rules Bitcoin is built on participants can then harmoniously build applications within the set boundaries.
And conflicts will drastically reduce if there is well defined rule every activity is based on. Whenever there is deviation from the rule, there will automatically be a uniting force (united by the rule) against it...

fun fact
signatures are now called witnesses
segregating them is actually one of the features segwit enabled nodes can offer
they even have 2 txid's and merkle trees for exactly this function

(it really does pay to read some code and understand the word "segretated witness")

yes
unupgraded nodes that do not understand segwit will have a stripped block not containing the witness(signatures)
(the stripped blocks are filtered to non-segwit nodes from a segwit enabled node doing the stripping for the non segwit node)

it required alot of cludgy code to do this "backward compatible " data striping feature, where it required segwit enabled nodes to do the stripping if they had unupgraded peers connected to them.

pushing the unupgraded peers to the outer hops of the relay network where they dont get to be the normal class of nodes validating everything


..
oh and NO one said all blocks dont have signatures any more. NO one
its just another misdirection social game.
the actual debates were that non segwit nodes lost their "full node status" by being handled differently given a different lump of data than a segwit enabled node got

More dangerous than proposals are the people, more specifically the "hooligans" who only create chaos and effectively prevent technical discussion from growing. The best example is 2017 where we saw scores of them on the internet spreading misinformation at the same time. To this day some people think SegWit "removes" signatures from blocks because of it!

5 controversial dangerous proposals are and were:

1. changing the consensus mechanism from consent by mass survey(dictionary and byzantine generals solution definitions), to instead activate with less network peer requirement, where its a "abstinence is consent" model, introduced by a core'poral rather then any decentralised 'generals'

2. having mechanisms to reject blocks, and ban peers that do not flag for an activation prior to activation. this falsifies any consensus(consent) count

3. proposal of so called "privacy features" such as:
a. to break the UTXO spend chain of custody movement(remove taint via non accountable tx format) - removing the proof of origins means it cant be proved coins were originally mined, thus opening up risk of creating new coin outside the mining process and also taking coin without ownership permission
b. wanting to put features like mimblewimble on the mainnet rather than a safer 'extended'(side/sub) network/chain

4. increasing the shareable units.
this requires bad code to separate legacy/native value from future format value where the cross overs could bug and cause new coin creation or coin destruction out of circulation, changes the halving cycles and also changes the ultimate maximum units ever mined rules

5. proposing YEARS ago that subnetworks will be the payment utility of all bitcoiners to save the mainnet from being the payment network. whilst years later those subnetworks have still not met their promises to meet the functionality nor capability to handle real usage beyond pizza value amounts, and even those are not 100% guaranteed, secure. yet we still have to "wait and see" before scaling bitcoin (scaling not leaping)

To me the most outrageous proposal was for bitcoin to abandon PoW and go PoS, like ETH. This should, and I hope that it will, never happen as it would make bitcoin more centralized and more vulnerable to attacks. IMO in the long run ETH users will come to a conclusion that this was a bad idea and it will cost them some money if they hold these tokens.

Probably second on that list would be what BCH was pushing which was a fork and block size change that would result in abandoning the current chain that we're in.

Layer 2 upgrades don't concern me at all as long as the main protocol stays the same.

Yeah, I think so. I think the community cares a great deal in which direction Bitcoin goes. If the community didn't care as much, I don't think we'd have as much discussion as we do here. However, the Bitcoin community is much larger than what we've got here, and there's constant discussions on how we can improve it. They might not be right, but you can see that people are motivated to improve Bitcoin.

On the flip side, that also means people don't want to see the wrong decisions made. Ultimately, when it comes to big changes, and therefore hard forks the people get to decide what they want to adopt, and what they don't.

Division isn't always a bad thing. It means, that all alternatives are being considered. It's those with the strongest argument or merit to their idea that should succeed. It means, we haven't got just a handful of people making the decisions, but hundreds or thousands of people contributing to the future of development. I would rather have a debate when it comes to important changes, so that all angles are considered, than having a one way discussion where no one else proposes any other ideas.

Well, debate is the only way to go.... without it, we will fall into the same toxic situation where we have people with hidden agendas trying to do a power grab on Bitcoin development and implementation of harmful ideas. (BCash pushers)

I watched the whole fork battle ..back in the day.. and I saw the division it caused in the community, but that is unfortunately what the whole consensus idea is about. (Bitcoin BTC eventually came out on top.... and we stayed in good hands) 

core dont care because their proposals are now all "backward compatible" meaning those that dont upgrade just get a passive, stripped version which just lets new features in as "is valid" without doing full verification

remember how much ceremony and promotion was needed to hype up of taproot proposal to get people interested to upgrade just to activate taproot.. nope? coz there was none.
it didnt need a majority of users to upgrade to activate it..  core bypassed what you speak of..

core have flipped consensus upside down. they have not used satoshis 2009-2016 version of consensus since 2017
(the 2009-16 true version of consensus was a byzantine generals solution.. now its a single 'core'poral in charge)

now new features are treated as "is valid" and accepted without rejection. whereby un-upgraded nodes are not allowed to say no and prevent activation. they instead are pushed out to the edges of the network, and handed data thats stripped or set to just blind accept. and are not completely validating full data.  or rejected off the network,
where they if they choose.. they can upgrade just to again start validating full data that has been pushed into activation without a consensus (consent by mass survey) event of majority activation principles

The community definitely cares simply because they have the incentive to care, and the community decides in the end which proposals end up being implemented to Bitcoin Core because the community decides which Bitcoin Core version to run.

most of the popular sub/side networks are not bitcoin only features

they are bridge networks allowing multiple mainnet blockchain value to be offramped. taking users away from using the mainnets of multiple blockchains and into another network of having to trust their value with

take a few examples
the ones phished as "is bitcoin" can bridge to multiple networks like litecoin and others.. and DO..(there is proof, so not a myth)

but the amount of liquidity pegged to these bitcoin phished bridges(LN/liquid) is far less then say alot of ERC protocol subnetwork bridge to bitcoin

for instance
wbtc has 173,000 btc pegged
btc.b has 5700 btc pegged

however LN has only 5272
and liquid has 3567
..

many people are soo irritated and peed off with the 7 years of waiting for the supposed promised of "LN is the solution to scaling utility" and how flawed and broken those promises are. they end up using other bridges that are phishing with within the ethereum pond

and i am not going to get into the silly hypocrisy of doomads reverse play on his own politics which are the opposite of what he is trying to be onside with now.
he is too late to pretend he is for the things he now suggests after years of being oppositional to it

There are several proposals for changes to Bitcoin that some people regard as controversial or even harmful. Some examples include:

Covenants: This proposal would allow for the creation of smart contracts that can be enforced by the Bitcoin network, but some critics argue that it would introduce too much complexity and could be used for malicious purposes.

Drivechains: This proposal would allow for the creation of sidechains that are pegged to the value of Bitcoin, but some critics argue that it would introduce too much centralization and could be used to attack the Bitcoin network.

TARO (on LN): Some criticisms of this protocol are that it is not a true layer 2 solution, it introduces more centralization, and it could be used to attack the network.

Critics to LN and Liquid: Some people argue that these networks are not true layer 2 solutions, they introduce more centralization, and they could be used to attack the Bitcoin network

It's important to note that these are just a few examples and there are many different proposals being discussed within the Bitcoin community. Some people have strong opinions on these proposals, both positive and negative. It's important for people with technical knowledge to openly debate the pros and cons of these proposals so that lay people can be more informed and make decisions.
As you pointed out, it's important for the bitcoin community to be vigilant and cautious about changes to the protocol, especially those that could potentially harm Bitcoin in the long run. The success of Bitcoin ultimately depends not only on the success of the underlying technology, but also on the strength of the social layer, made up of bitcoiners, node operators, miners, developers, educators, and end users.

Do they care about what others propose?
Should anyone care what they are doing even if it leads to centralization, if we can't actually stop them?
So bitcoin if centralized, #fork and dump the centralized chain.

I remember the blocksize being increased was a big issue and big discussion at the time.

Any examples of when developers have been dismissive afaik they are not that involved in the community here on the forums? Is this in the mailing list that they are dismissive?  

Most of the time.the devs keep quiet and seem dismissive about things. At the same time, there's other things coming down the pipeline to replace those ideas.

One of the devs posted a megathread here in 2015 (iirc) about whether blocksize should be increased to 4mb. In 2017 it was realistically enacted due to segwit being introduced and allowing blocks to become that big.

Most suggestions of smart contracting will likely go away if bridges improve or if bitcoin gets its own additional layers (there's no reason someone can't develop a PoS token on bitcoin with its own consensus mechanism).

Further blocksize increases can be obtained from taproot and mimble wimble (there will likely be other ways too to improve throughput).

I believe that the most dangerous proposals are the ones which offer a trade-off with decentralization.

AFAIK, decentralization  must be protected at all costs, and this is the one thing that makes bitcoin valuable and useful.

It's a difficult line to walk.  On the one hand we want free, open and honest discussion.  But on the other hand, it would be wrong to produce an echo chamber or any form of gatekeeping.  There are also potential pitfalls surrounding collusion and corruption.  If those deemed to have sufficient technical knowledge could be bribed or influenced into pushing certain ideas, that could pose a real problem.  At the end of the day, we are effectively talking about money.  And nothing corrupts more.  I'd also hate to see things devolve into a 'cult of personality' where it turns everything into some sort of popularity contest, which happens all too often in politics, for example.

To be honest, this forum already serves as a collection of "cautious bitcoiners that are able to resist code changes", so I'm not sure we need much else beyond this and all the other varieties of social media out there.  

Controversy is probably inevitable, but it all gets sorted out in the end.  I might come across as overly philosophical or trite here, but that's pretty much what the consensus mechanism is for.  Prolonged infighting usually only delays what was always going to happen in the end anyway.  And it is ultimately a good thing that all ideas are challenged and not simply waved through unchecked.  Even if it gets a little out of hand sometimes.  Either enough people move forward together with a new proposal, or the status quo remains.  

What bitcoin proposals do you regard as controversial or even harmful ? And why?
These proposals can be both at layer 1 or at above layers (ex: TARO on LN)

For example, I've seen people being strongly opposed to proposal such as covenants and drivechains. I'm don't have a stablished opinion on them, so I'd like to see others' opinions on the topics, be it positive or negative.

I'm starting to notice moderate tension on some bitcoin communities i participate in (twitter, telegram, youtube) regarding proposals to change bitcoin (those 2 topics, as well as other ones) and to extend it on above layers (ceticism regarding lightning network and liquid network, heavy critics to TARO protocol). After reading Blocksize War, it kinda felt that in 5-10 years we could have another "civil war"

I think we need a strong social layer of cautious bitcoiners that are able to resist code changes that promote hidden agendas and could possibly harm bitcoin in the long run. To do so, those with technical knowledge should openly debate the pros and cons of proposals to change/improve Bitcoin (be it at layer 1, be it at layer 2,3,...) so that lay people can be more informed to take decisions. The success of bitcoin ultimately depends not on the success of layer 1, but on the strength of layer 0, the social layer (bitcoiners, node operators, miners, developers, educators, end users, etc...)