Topic: Do some people still believe that Bitcoin "Core and Cash bilaterally split"? - page 2. (Read 816 times)

"The SegWit side"?  Not all supporters of SegWit supported UASF. 

So, not only are you deliberately and misleadingly conflating the actions of UASF with the actions of Core (separate repositories, the UASF client was forked from Core's GitHub), you're also deliberately and misleadingly conflating the actions of UASF with the actions of every single person who thinks SegWit is a good idea. 

If a random user you've never heard of created a new client with a flag-day activation of Aug 1st 2019 which implemented an idea Core are currently developing, say Schnorr for example, would you instinctively blame Core, along with everyone who has ever said Schnorr is a good idea, for that too?  Even if they weren't actually supporting that particular flag-day activation?  Is that how your reasoning works?

anyway moving on
in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point

no
the community got divided. many were thrown off the network
not by desire to be thrown off the network. it was oh crap some nodes are gonna get banned

so they ended up a couple months after being told they are getting thrown off they had to:
.agree and rewrite their nodes to be full nodes
.just stall out if they had code that received full blockdata that disagreed with segwit1x
.became not full node by recieving stripped data just to remain on the network (become "compatible" <-devs buzzword)
.or create an altcoin

there wasnt a option to just say no to segwit1x on august 1st and prevent an activation. it was mandated

seriously this is not a thing you can decide by conversations. its something you have to realise by looking at the statistics and seeing what actually happened.
many stats exist

i have a question for you. are you trying to change history for a reason?
is it just entertainment for you and your buddies?
is it that your one of those flat earther/holocaust deniers that just loves twisting things?
is it that you cant actually research?

if you cant see that a true consensus bip had a november 2016 to november 2017 date, with no mandatory obligation or bans
where that consensus had no code related to anything around august.

if you cant see that a controversial hardfork bip occured in august due to code stating in august something will happen whereby it was mandated. thus not consensual .
cutting the community up and coercing the vote via diluting out opposers, ignoring some abstainers and only counting those that agree

then maybe best to you do some research.
it was not natural consensus. it was mandated
learn mandated
the word contains two word  man-date
a date chosen by man

august 1st was not consensus of do not activate unless 95% of whole community agree. because the consensus 95% was not counting the whole community because the community got divided to fake count an activation

and i can pre-empt your next ploy
it was not a consensual agreement to split it was a controversial split.
its the devs that call it "bilateral" where they wish to think the words mean joint agreement to split. again no it was a reluctant controversial split
some define the bilateral split to mean 2 splits because segwit split away from just being legacy code and cash split away from segwit

but long story short there was no way to avoid segwit1x activation due to the mandate
and who created the mandate. those wanting segwit1x

Claiming an idea which Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split into two does not make it real. I wouldn't say Bitcoin Cash hard forked to double the monetary supply to 42 million. I understant that they want to leave the BTC network and make another one. But free fall of bitcoin price is not an opportunity for them, because these prices effect badly everything on the market.

Ok, then we are in agreement that Segwit truly had consesus when it was activated without "2X" last year. The economic majority expressed themselves on what they wanted, and the miners followed. Consensus.

summary
its funny that people poke and finger point at me. yet i am not the one writing code that mandates crap.

if people dont like my opinion
if people dont like that i simplify explanations with analogies
if people dont like that i dont kiss a devs ass
if people dont like that i dont use devs buzzwords.. but then dont like it when i do use their buzzwords

then just get on with your lives. hit the ignore button and enjoy your blissful life of dev hugs

ill continue to care about the bitcoin networked utility and security. i care not for a devs reputation.. they will move on retire, change jobs, get bored at somepoint way before bitcoin. so ill concentrate on long term security of bitcoin. not short term financial security of a devs sponsorship ability
the core devs have plenty of funds, well over $100m to split between themselves so its not like they are starving and going to be eating chicken nuggets as their christmas meal.. so its not like they need protecting

i know some people want this forum to only contain a utopian empty promise rather than real open discussions of flaws. but in the real world its better to speak up when there are flaws. to atleast seek to get the flaws solved, or atleast warn others that things are not as they seem

if you only want to see the utopian fluffy clouds. press the ignore button and go find the fluff you seek

if it doubles the total coin supply. then deflation is dead. mindset changes from "guaranteed limit" to "if they done it once they will do it again"
trust is lost and people dont value the coin anymore as a store of value

If it increases the block size and total supply will make things worse. If this happens, will the price drop by half? And who are the owners of the supply of additional supply? Who owns it get benefits from this? Any reason I believe in this?

(facepalm)
never said i fully supported or advocated for segwit2mb
as i have said.. community COMPROMISE to come to a consensus

EG the group that wanted 16mb, 8mb, 4mb  ended up compromising to 2mb
other groups that just wanted legacy compromised to accept segwit as long as it was more then 1mb base block

but yea just to end the debate and get things running if core actually held onto the 2015 consensus debate of segwit2mb they woulda had much more progress in late 2016

.. the funny part is the colourful chart you supplied. was a poll done AFTER certain events and drama. which swayed peoples minds in one direction or another.

but its usual for you and your buddies to pretend i say one thing . that i advocate things. when in fact i dont.
but anyway your deflecting
it clearly says better than nothing.. not love and adoration and full advocation of segwit
it clearly says better than nothing.. not love and adoration and full advocation of forking the network

this topic is about the split/fork. caused by MANDATED activation via events of august first. which the august 1st date was chosen by the segwit side.

anyway. you are still just trying to defend a dev and not talking from a secure blockchain network mindset.
so have a nice day.
(you might have a better day hugging a dev than trying to poke people that dont kiss a devs ass, because we value bitcoin security far more than dev reputation)

Oh joy, more historical inaccuracies.  

Events as they unfolded were once again totally different to the distorted events you describe:

People generally supported SegWit in some form or another, but could not agree on which form it should take.  Tell me which compromise you could even somehow manage to convince that small sample of the community to agree on, let alone the entire network.  8 responders out of 22 stated categorically that they would not accept 2mb + SegWit.  That doesn't quite fit your definition of "natural consensus", now, does it?  Come back when you have a clue and remember history as it actually was.

Even you clearly said 2mb + SegWit was "weak" because "2merkle which is cludgy code".  
Then I suggested you could be a little more mature about it.  
Eventually you capitulated and described it as "better than nothin" (which, technically, wasn't really an improvement over "weak").  
But sure, keep telling us how you supported 2mb + SegWit all along and that everyone in the community "would have accepted 2x naturally" when they clearly didn't.  Even you didn't agree with it until you eventually realised it was probably the closest thing to your beliefs that you ever had a remote chance of actually getting.  

the community is EVERYONE
devs, users, miners

i think you and doomad have core devs and community confused. the core DEVS wanted segwit. but the community of all 3 circles couldnt agree

before the mandated threats. segwit only had 35% opt-in agreement of pools
before the mandated threats. segwit only had no real uptake/growth of core nodes
core didnt like those results. hense why lukeJr double downed with the backdoor method.

i think when i say bitcoin you only think of core..  and when i say core you only think of bitcoin. which is where the confusion you have begins

when i point out issues with core thats not me attacking the bitcoin network (again your confusion of it)
my opinion is the network/community should not be solely reliant on core. should not kiss their royal ring and sheepishly follow core devs whims.

now if you imagine the community being everyone. you start to actually picture how consensus should be a united community. and not a opportunity to kick half certain cirlces out if one circle wants something.
the endless cicle of cries that certain people have that core devs should have absolute right to do anything they like to the network is wrong.
yes let the write code. whether it be on github, a thai brides thigh or paper. release code. but saying they have the right to mandate its activation. is wrong.. as thats centralising the network to a core team

there needs to be united agreement where if for instance core propose something. they shouldnt simply get it activated due to them having a backdoor. or because they make threats and set deadlines.
if core dont get majority.. like they didnt in november 2016-spring 2017 then they should put their tail between their legs and redesign things / make a few tweaks to produce something the WHOLE community would like.

to save tim, not cause delay and actually save face. they could have actually listened to the community and obided by the late 2015 consensus which was a combination of users, merchants, devs and miners. who majority agreed to a segwit2mb
meaning by late 2016 they would have got their segwit AND the community also get 2mb baseblock
no drama. no delay. no fingerpointing, no splitting the network. no problems

november 2016-spring 2017 = natural normal consensus.

summer 2017=forced mandated= not natural

i said many many many times if core wrote segwit2mb as they said they would in 2015 the community would have accepted NATURALLY via original consensus segwit. because the opposers would have also got more base block.. thus majority happy naturally.
the thing is. what got activated was not done naturally hense why a year later (3 years of debate so far) people are still waiting for bitcoin scaling solutions


again
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

again
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

and again
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

i know you want to deflect the topic and try to make is sound like im talking about what code they can write.

but no.. what im talking about is what code should be activated on the network.
segwit august 2017 was not activated by a united community vote of users and miners.
united communiy vote of majority=consensus
bilateral split=not comsensus
mandated or ban =not consensus
apartheid=not consensus

again
the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

to other readers i am sorry for repeating myself but certain people poke into topics and meander into personal social dram of twisting information and making is sound like things such as
i was advocating splitting the network.. no i my opinion has always been CONSENSUS without MANDATED threats /forks
and
i want to stop devs writing code.. no my opinion is devs shouldnt use backdoors to change the network without consensus
and
how im authoritarian.. no i am not the one with the mandated threats and backdoor code that is a security risk to the network

its strange how certain people want to argue and defend the devs then realise the point is bitcoin network security again malicious activations/backdoors

my opinion use consensus to stay united and upgrade feature the majority community want = consensus
some others opinions if you dont like it f**k off = not consensus

to the point of the topic
to make it clear
I DO NOT ADVOCATE BILATERAL SPLITS

Well you managed to get 1 out of the 4 correct.  That's actually not bad for you.

"There is no code to prevent softforks" = a user can either opt in or not, the choice is yours, but you can't stop others opting in.  Softfork code doesn't activate unless there is consensus.  SegWit was activated with 90+% of the network hashrate.  Cry moar.

"Devs don't decide consensus" = Correct.  Users and miners decide.

"Devs don't need permission" = They can code whatever they like, but if no one runs it, then they've wasted their time.  Case in point, UASF.  Hardly any users.  A developer made UASF but the code didn't do anything because there weren't enough users supporting it.  Clearly it's in the interests of devs to create code that users want to run.  Code doesn't do anything if no one runs it.  Stop pretending that just because Core code something, it means they're deciding what consensus is.  That's flagrantly dishonest.  As always, you refuse to acknowledge that users are freely choosing to run the code Core are creating.  Note that this is nothing to do with "giving permission", because permission doesn't count for anything here.

"Users and miners decide" = nothing whatsoever to do with "giving permission" to anyone.  What part of permissionless do you fail to comprehend?  Why would you want to introduce permission to a system that works perfectly well without it?  Users and miners run what they want, devs code what they want.  

Again, it's all just a bunch of people doing anything they want to do and market forces take care of the rest.  You can't stop people from doing the things they want to do.  And even if you could, it would be terrible for Bitcoin.  At all times, the network will naturally choose what its users believe is the best code overall at that given moment in time.  

Plus I believe franky1 has "community" and "miners" clumped in one group. The community wanted Segwit but Jihan and the mining cartel didn't. Miner signalling for its readiness to activate something does not represent the community.

The fork was actually a way to segregate the races, because they did not want to drive on one bus together, so they created two busses, one for the whites and one for the blacks. So, the fork was actually unforced "Apartheid" in the Bitcoin world.  

Why should people be forced to ride in one bus, if there are enough busses for each of the races? They can even "fork" a bus for people who wants to ride together.  

The fork gives people the opportunity to decide what they want to do and this is why consensus is so important in the Crypto currency world.

But when the UASF happened, would you agree that Segwit as an inclusive soft fork was better for the network because it did not throw anyone out of the network?


Were you against Roger Ver's "must fork to big blocks or be left behind" which caused a chain-split?


Is it FUD? You are the person who first told me about the idea of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash bilaterally split into two. Would you still have the same perception if Bitcoin Cash hard forked to double the monetary supply to 42 million?

anyway putting doomads personal conversation aside.. yet again

back to the topic.
if cash wanted to do as windfury said. who cares they are an altcoin.
it has no relevance to bitcoin

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for

he does flip flop

one minute devs can do what they please no one can stop them. next minute devs dont decide but the community does..

"there is no code to prevent softforks"        = users dont decide on changes
"devs dont decide consensus"                    = users do decide on changes
"devs dont need permission"                      = users dont decide on changes
"users and miners decide"                         = devs do need permission

flipity flop

also inflight upgrades is what Luke JR calls them

funny thing with you doomad is you argue if i dont use your dev buddies terms then argue when i do
funny thing with you doomad is you argue that community voted for segwit .. then argue core didnt need a vote and nothing to stop core activating
funny thing with you doomad is you argue that events didnt happen then argue they did.

now heres the point.
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

how many times do i have to say mandate and consensus.
while you cry about writing code as your deflection

last funny part
doomad
show me cod where i an enforcing anything.
you keep on trying and failing to make things sound like i am authoritarian yet i am not the one with the code that demands, mandates and splits the network.

if you dont like my words hit the ignore button
the only people who are mandating network changes are devs.
so go argue with them about what they can and cant do because code doesnt write itself. rules dont write itself. the dvs write the rules so go argue with them about if they should b doing what they are doing.

oh wait.. your response "no one should tell a dev what to do...". while hypocritically doomad wants to cry and tell people on a forum to have no say, no opinion and not talk. purely because ......... well who knows why doomad dislikes opposing opinions
truly funny he thinks my words on a forum actually changes networks rules...
this forum is not github. its not compiled into a binary. so i do laugh when doomad thinks my words are stopping devs

you gotta laugh doomad really thinks this forum gets compiled into code and actually affects the network.
when he wakes up and realises only developers write code and its what they write that actually changes the network. he will realise that malicious changes to the network are the fault of devs.. not forum users.

anyway putting doomads personal conversation aside.. yet again

back to the topic.
if cash wanted to do as windfury said. who cares they are an altcoin.
it has no relevance to bitcoin

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for