Topic: Do you run a Core node? One of the users here thinks you're a sheep. (Read 328 times)

Make new topic is better as you'll get views from few members before heated discussion between few members happens (from what i've seen, once this happen, most members become silent reader rather than share his views)

I don't follow btcd development, but clearly bitcore is independent option (based on your definition) as it's created by BitPay which shows hostile treatment against Bitcoin.

Fair point.  I'll stay out of it for a while and ask politely that my opponent does the same.  Let's allow some other people the opportunity to get a word in and have a real discussion about how people generally feel about control and permission.

//EDIT:  Or is it better to lock this topic and start from scratch?  I do genuinely want to hear other peoples' views on this, but it seems to be going awfully quiet in here.

//UPDATE:  Locking this one, contribute all thoughts to the new topic.  

it is social drama because instead of opening a topic and discussing about a certain subject you started a topic about that subject but only focused on individuals an right now half this topic is about Franky not about the subject!

Core wrote that.  Those securing the chain made it happen.  You don't seem to be a very fast learner.  I guess I'll have to repeat it a few more times until it gets through your nigh-impenetrable skull.  If you keep saying that Core activate features, I'm going to start pointing out that sheep are clearly more intelligent that you.

Also, you should be thankful.  The way in which is was implemented means you're free to stay on the same chain and keep taking full advantage of the security and utility of Bitcoin.  Way to keep bitching about your freedom to coexist, though.  Doesn't make you sound like an entitled ingrate at all.  



And what is it that makes you think you're in a position to tell me that I need your permission to use SegWit?  What I'm doing doesn't impact you.  It's none of your damn business.  You can keep using Bitcoin exactly as you did before and you don't have to use SegWit if you don't like it.  No one is forcing you to upgrade, but you can't prevent us from upgrading.  This is the part you don't seem to appreciate.  You wanting to do things the old way doesn't mean we have to do the same.  We can leave you behind if we want to.  It's within the rules and we've already done it.  We've chosen to move forwards and there is nothing you can do to stop us.  You don't get to veto what other users want to do just because you have some completely incorrect definition of consensus bouncing around in your skull that doesn't match up with reality.  So suck it.  



Drivel.  Complete and utter drivel.  It's not like Core have written something that other dev teams aren't allowed to write.  It is a level playing field.  Just because another dev team haven't managed to code something as a softfork before (because it does take a fair bit of skill), it doesn't mean they couldn't if they had the talent to do it.  Anything Core can do, other dev teams can do too.  You don't understand consensus because you keep saying Core are activating features.

nodes did not need to upgrade to segwit in summer 2017!!

core made it so nodes that dont upgrade are handed a stripped block
thus nodes did not need to upgrade to give permission

again your amnesia has made you forget your admiration flop of loving the "compatibility" fix they done
core devs didnt need 9500+ nodes to go into the debug/console to RKT out opposition.
core devs had their own strategic nodes to handle it. again nodes didnt need to do anything

core even made it so pools didnt need to upgrade their nodes. all they had to do is change a version number in their block id even while running old nodes just to stay on the network

segwit 1x got activated without needing true consensus because core CODED a way to bypass true consensus for the summer 2017 event

dang your flip flop amnesia is playing you up

what YOU dont understand is bitcoins byzantine generals theory solution of consensus 2009-2015.. had slowly got eroded down. and by summer 2017 core was able to totally bypass it without users vote

...
what you dont understand is bitcoin lost its open diversity and multiple brands working on the same level playing field of true consensus.

devs are happy to admit as much. they are totally happy showing off their involvement. so i see no reason why you have to try insinuating they were not involved..

bitcoins revolutionary decentralised network ethos of 2009+ is not the same as bitcoins distributed core centric network of 2017+
i really think its time you either take the core defense hat off.. coz they dont need you wearing it. or you need to update your research beyond the echo's of promo material handed to you 4+years ago

---

EDIT to address the post below instead of spamming the topic

about the stripped blocks and downstream/bridged/filtered nodes

1. nodes getting stripped blocks are not getting full block data. they are also not part of the main relay stream. its why they dont get unconfirmed segwit transactions to relay. its why they dont get witness data to validate a segwit tx is valid,
its why thy dont relay blocks to other nodes (because segwit nodes would not accept a stripped block

2. they are NOT taking full advantage of the security and utility of the network because they are not fully validating the blocks they are just giving transactions a pass without independent validation and just treating is as a pass because thats how the code has been wrote. and guess who wrote the code, core..

3. bitnodes.earn.com suggests over 10k nodes. but do you realise that less than 7k nodes are part of the full validation/ relay stream of nodes(and i am not talking about 30%+ spv/lit nodes either, im talking about 30% of nodes that were/meant to be/have been full validation nodes.. but are not)

4. your flip flopping how the way segwit was activated was a way to have certain nodes stay on the same network even when they didnt upgrade their node to say they were able and ok with segwit. (thus hypocritically admitting 95% true consensus was not reached, but making it sound like a good thing)

but those nodes didnt get a vote in a true consensus. you dug yourself a hole.. by you trying to twist the bypass into a positive you actually admitted the negative.

think of the logic. how can 70% being full relay/validation capable and showing readiness for segwit AT MOST NOW(so lower numbers then) have contributed to a 95% agreement..
dont you get it. 30% of nodes allowed to stay but not part of the main relay stream means 30% abstain...which is not 95% agree.. and back then the numbers would have been less that 70% ready, meaning higher than 30% abstain/not agree. and if you did include the nodes that got kicked off(total objection) the number would have been even worse where there would have been more like a 50% non agreement

again not near a 95% full community agreement..

5. you also want to pretend history is different 'because core said that' (facepalm) now your sounding worse than just a echo chamber repeater.
maybe you have to realise that 'those securing the network' is not 95% of the whole community of nodes that were told they were still 'full nodes' even if they dont upgrade.
maybe you have to realise that 'those securing the network' is a much lower number then you think. as its definitely not the 10k nodes of bitnodes.earn.com.
core messed with the 95% rule and done a few different tricks such as NYA and bip 148 and other things with strategic nodes

6. i find it funny how you try to down play the controversy of 2017 to sound like it is just me alone that was some big massive influencer/objector, decision power.. yet atleast 30-50% of the network found segwit1x controversial and not 5%
also me having an opinion on a forum is discussion. you keep saying how i pretend cor needed my permission. again as if your trying to push that i am some big player.. again your exaggerating social drama..
i am voicing my opinion on a discussion forum and also reminding people of what actually happened in regards to the 2017 controversy. you are the own trying to twist the power play around to try making core sound innocent and then double twist to make it sound like there were only a couple objectors.

my opinion, is simple. node statistics. code and even some devs willful admissions
 without a full unprovoked, un wishy washy, untricked game playing, true consensus. core would not have got 95% for segwit1x activation using a real consensus mechanism in summer/autumn 2017
core would have had to have gone back to the drawing board and recode something that would have been more community acceptable.
but core didnt. instead they done their tricks and used thier strategic nodes to fake a 95% acceptance

even the segwit2x part which you were very vocal about celebrating. was not down to 10k nodes (lets say9500) all independently going in and upgrading and saying lets ban thousands of segwit2x nodes to prevent 2x activation
again it was only a few strategic nodes that done that.

7. saying core done it as a softfork.. is funny..
core actually instigated a controversial hardfork in summer 2017. to gain control of the network to then have enough control to be able to then soft/inflight upgrade the network autumn+ 2017
atleast wake up to reality.

8. and before you flip flop again. the nodes that are on the network are not on the same level playing field in regards to validation/relay. infact the number is far less than 70% are at the main relay/validation stream layer
you might want to do some research
(and im not taling light/spv either before you insinuate)

You literally just said again that Core are activating the feature and they need the community's permission to do it.  Read what you are saying and understand why it is completely ass-backwards.  I don't care if it's pre or post 2017, developers do not activate features.  You do not understand Bitcoin if you think they do.  Those securing the chain activate a feature by running the code.  Running the code is the act of giving permission.  Everything that has transpired is within the rules which users are enforcing.  Your infantile bawling changes nothing. 

pre CORE changing the rules of consensus and doing the consensus bypass. (pre summer 2017)
core needed communities permission to ACTIVATE a feature..

as displayed by them only getting 35% spring 2017. which they hated.

but instead of going back to the drawing board and coding something else that would have got community permission (consensus) by offering something the majority would upgrade to

they instead stuck with the same feature and instead changed how consensus should be reached by doing the compatibilty bypass and the mandated strategic nodes to kick off blocks/opposition and fake choic of a fake option for sgwit2x to fake a consensus activate segwit1x. by which users were not needing to upgrade 95% to segwit1x to give permission (compatiblilty and aparthied ensured that segwit1x would activate at lower)

and now the network is unopposed due to fear of being regulated off the network in rkt campaigns. core can do as they please

and please dont try insinuating that i am the only opposer
and please dont try insinuating 9500 nodes all manually banned nodes and rejected blocks
and please dont try insinuating it required 9500 nodes to al upgrade to segwit1x

atleast do some research on cores code tricks to win core dominance

which is why now core can do as they please due to 'compatibility' and their strategic nodes and people are now just sheep
(the only insult you can find i mentioned) unlike your insult onslaught.

P.S devs dont need defending to pretend they dont control the network. they are more than happy to admit it. Luke certainly loves his 'inflight upgrades' and his involvement in the mandated stuff
sipa and gmax loved adding in bc1q tx formats spring 2018 without require network permission

so try giving the defend core dev stance a rest. they are happy that opposing node brands would be rekt off the network or stripped down to downstream/filtered nodes instead of being part of the real consensus relay stream part of the network

Core need the community's permission to do what?  Answer the question. 

the 95% activation threshold was not reached by having 95% consent of a full community
strategic core controlled nodes(fibre and dns seeds) kicked off the nodes and rjcted blocks that opposed it. TO FAKE 95% consent before such even got to the community.

do you even understand the controversy of 2017
also nodes DIDNT need to upgrade. as they would be treated as "compatible"
do you even understand the controversy of stripped data blocks
do you not understand that core instigated things without needing the community. which was the consensus bypass

dang doomad you literally must have got amnesia or flip flopped so much you cant remember which narrative you were for or against over the last 3-4 years

I'm not insinuating anything.  I'm not changing the narrative.  You literally just said Core need the community's permission.  Permission to do what?  Core are not activating code.  Those securing the network are the ones activating the features you don't like.  What permission do Core need if they're not activating features?  This community have given their consent, because THEY ARE RUNNING THE CODE.  Consent comes from running the code.  That's all the permission a feature needs to activate.  If users did not give their consent, they would not run the code.  This is how it works.  And then when I point out what should be completely obvious, you call those securing the network sheep and claim it's still somehow Core's fault that those securing the network activate these features you don't like.  So round and round in circles we go because you are completely dishonest and can't admit what a totalitarian fascist you are.

oh mr flip flop.. changing your narrative again
read my quote which you quoted thanks for immortalising that
 FOR A FEATURE TO ACTIVATE
AKA PERMISSION TO ACTIVATE

you then insinuate that i am saying that i am arguing that core need MY permission for their code to "exist"
you wer trying to flop the narrative to try making it sound like i was not talking about activation....
again fools on you when you go and actually quote me using the word activation and not the word 'exist'
also you were trying to suggest how i am saying core needs controller franky1 as permission granter..
yet the quote again is consent of majority of community....

im not arguing about MY permission.. thats you again flip flopping about some social drama you wish to create.
again you have foolishly gone full social drama illogic.. your just trying to dig your own grave now by scraping the bottom of the barrel of misdirection

im saying core have now activated core features without the community which is a diffrnt ethos to 2009-2013/5. because they changed the rules. where they NOW dont need community consent TO ACTIVATE.
bitcoin DID HAVE (past tense) a fair diverse consent/vote/permission system for ACTIVATING features. (by which core only gained 35% vote on in spring 2017). so they went full on REKT campaign and mandatory control campaign for summer 2017

proof is that you pretend that individuals needed to manually kick opposers off (your prtens that 2017 events were user caused not dev code caused(ur never ending defend a dev pretense))
yet there were no event of 9500 users manually going into the command line to ban nodes.
the mandated kick off was due to a few core centric strategic nodes(fibre) rejecting blocks so the community never got thus never needed to decide to accept or reject blocks,
and changing dns seeds so the community never connect to opposing nodes.
where by the now opposing brand nodes dont connect as part of the main relay stream, but as downstream/bridged/filtered nodes.

you may want to try doing some research and dont pretend these are new hints. you had them months ago, so could have saved yourself alot of shame by learning this stuff months ago

Yes, permission to activate.  Not to merely exist.  You are arguing that Core need your permission for their code to exist.  But it doesn't need your permission to exist.  So please whine about it some more. 

Based on the code people are running, consensus has been achieved and continues to be achieved with every block.  If you don't like it, tough.

knots bitcore btcd are not independant options. they are just the same group as core. under the ruse of free choice
if you look at those options you wont find 'bip' gateways where devs/users can choose/propose options. you wont find they oppose cores rules.
take knots for instance. Luke JR purposefully makes obscene proposals for his knots purely because he knows they are obscene, but puts them in his knots to make it look like knots is a opposing option.
even the NYA agreement of seg2x was a false deceptive opposing option, made purely to get segwit1x activated and then fade out the 2x option once 1x was activated. (NYA agreement chief barry silbert, pays the main core devs wages (dcg.co->blockstream, and BLOQ).. its all just one big ruse


anyway lets address doomads emotional rants of social drama
1. doomad flip flopping the definition of permissionless.
doomad thinks permissionless means core can activate rules and throw nodes off the network with impunity.
well that wasnt the case 2008-2015

yet doomads words infers that core have control because they dont need community consent(consensus) permission
(typical flip flop of doomad in and out of permission vs permissonless, just to try keeping the rug pulled over people)

years ago core would have needed consent/permission a whole 95%.
before they changed the rules of consensus and the thresholds and methods of counting such consent

funny part is high percentage of users are not writing code. they are just using an executable made by core thus they are just doing what the core code allows
after all what real options are there for open opposition if any opposition just ends up getting REKT off the network

even doomads whole emotional outbursts and stance that by me opposing core dominance makes me a threat. is him revealing himself that he is not open/diverse.

here is a funny
consensus.. voting.. "voting needs permission" .. doomad do you know what consensus is. here is a english lesson for you. the origin of words..  take the final 3 letters of consensus and swap it for the letter t
consent

for a feature to activate the feature needs consent of majority.. AKA a vote aka permission to activate
by core devs clubbing together with their investors to do a  strategy of throwing off the opposition to core(pre consent vote). just to force a core feature to activate under a fake vote loyalty count is not a community decision. because it didnt require the community to individually write their own nodes to decide who stays and who goes. it just require a few strategic nodes to do the work.

yep
by fibre (the pool ringfence of nodes) dropping connections and blocks of oppositions. the community without having to do a dang thing would not get opposing blocks. by core aligned DNS seeds not listing certain nodes the community without having to do a dang thing would not get listings of opposing nodes to connect to

and if you think the bitcoin network is highly core run out of true loyalty and support. you are wrong. people were forced to take on a core node or be kicked off the network, those nodes you see that are not core full nodes, are not existant due to fair network diversity. they are treated as 'filtered' 'downstream' 'stripped' 'bridged' nodes. (buzzwords the core devs openly created to describe them(before u dare think its me advocating the buzzwords or the activity))

i do find it funny how you wish to blame users for the network kickout of august 2017. when infact it was lines of code wrote by core devs that caused it.
yep. 9500+ individuals DID NOT just open their debug window and type commands manually. it was core code run by just a few strategic network nodes that done it, where the rest of the network in majority had to do nothing. 'due to compatibility'(consensus bypass)

can you even remember quoting yourself showing your absolute glee and happiness that core done what they done in summer 2017.. or are you going to forget that part
but hey. saying people need to "follow consensus" shows how revealing you. "follow".. i found it funny, you saying users need to follow a certain consent. which is basically you saying sheep. but again if the only insult you think i say is sheep. then you are really digging the bottom of the social drama barrel.
maybe next time spend more time researching bitcoin nd learning bitcoin and stop your insessent need for social drama. if you cant. atleast find the email address for auditioning to be an extra on eastenders of coronation street if your social drama requirement does not feel like its getting fulfilled. as i think you will enjoy reading scripts and being told what to say and do in exchange for some social drama.. it seems to be your niche

consent is not about "follow"..
 true real consent is about independent decision. which has been lost with all the REKT campaigns and social drama's and mandated network kickoff's before independant decisions for feature upgrades could even be made. thus now its all core maintained core referenced and how feature proposals need to go through the core monitored/moderated BIPS route for approval. just shows how the 2009-2013 decentralised diverse ethos of bitcoin has changed

How is it social drama?  One of the fundamental principles of Bitcoin is that it's permissionless.  It's clearly not social drama to point out the obvious fact that you are in no position to tell us we need to change the fundamental principles of Bitcoin just because you don't like them anymore.  If you think any developer needs your permission to write code, you clearly don't understand the first thing about any of this.  Open source means anyone can read, modify and redistribute code.  Just because some developers choose to work together on writing code, it doesn't mean they suddenly have to code things you would personally like them to code.  It doesn't work that way.  They don't owe you or your ego anything.  If users generally agree, large numbers of them will run that code.  If users generally don't agree, then developers have spent large amounts of their time time and effort coding something unpopular that most people don't want to run.  Like that code you run, for instance.  Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

It's not a "vote".  It's just people running code.  It's up to users to decide who can be connected to their node.  They can use the tools devs give them in any way they choose.  That includes throwing you off their network if they don't approve of your incompatible proposals.  They don't need permission to disconnect you.  Everyone is free to do what they want.  That's the beauty of it.  



You conflate voting with consensus as though they were the same thing.  They are not.  Voting involves permission and we don't have that here.  It's up to users what they run.  It's up to anyone what they code.  No one needs permission.  If you want to introduce permission, you're going to have to find another blockchain to do that on, because it won't be accepted here.  

Bitcoin is not a democracy.  Consensus does not mean everyone has to agree.  It means those who agree with each other will build a blockchain together.  Those who don't agree can find others who share their views and attempt to build a different blockchain.  You can and will be left behind if enough users want to move on without you.  Stop pretending that a small number of hardliner extremists get to veto new ideas and permanently stall any kind of progress.  Stop pretending it's practical to simultaneously be part of a network whilst also pulling in completely the opposite direction to what the rest of its users want.  If we did things your way, we'd still be in complete deadlock with no progress and an ongoing civil war.  That would be a far worse outcome than any of your moronic conspiracy theories and doomsday scenarios.



Opposing thoughts are fine, but you can't do it honestly.  You are manipulative.  You twist everything.  You take everything to extremes.  You can't give an impartial or neutral opinion.  

Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers and White Supremacists also have opposing views, but I'm not likely to make things easy for them in a debate either.  So just accept that it's my prerogative to find you a disgusting and reprehensible creature if that's the way I see it.  You've brought this upon yourself through your conduct over the years.  You've had ample opportunity to be reasonable, but time and again you take it to extremes and decide to post misleading and manipulative crap.  And you wonder why people keep calling you out on it?  



You think you can come bursting into topics that aren't even related to scaling/Core/SegWit/LN and whine incessantly about your softfork butthurt with impunity.  I could have replied to you in that topic, but why should you turn every single topic into the goddamn franky1 conspiracy crackpot extravaganza?  So I'm replying to you here, so it doesn't shit up all the other topics on the board.  You derail threads all over the place and you think people are just going to let you do it?  Maybe if you stop acting like a troll, I'll stop treating you like one.  Cause and effect.



You are more than welcome to that opinion, but at the end of the day, it's users who decide what consensus is by running code.  Your feeble attempts to redefine "true/real/fair" consensus are immaterial.  The code you choose to run is all that matters.  If you want to take advantage of the security and network effects generated by those securing this blockchain, then you need to follow consensus.  Reality has demonstrated to you beyond all reasonable doubt that if you try to block or generally stand in the way of consensus, again, you can and will be left behind if enough users decide to move on without you.  

None of this means that devs are "in control" and that users are "sheep".  If devs were "in control", I wouldn't be here.  I'd have called this a failed experiment long ago.  But devs are categorically not in control.  Consensus is decided by those securing the chain.  Code means nothing if hardly anyone is running it.  

Like that client you run, for example.  It doesn't have enough users running it to enforce the rules you would ideally like to enforce.  Because users generally don't agree with it.  If users did agree, it would make no difference who coded it.  Enough users running it means the code contained within it would activate and consensus would change.  It would be those securing the chain causing that change, not devs.  Your problem is that users don't agree with you, so you act like it's somehow a particular dev team's fault.



Difference being, I insult a small number of trolls who I think deserve it.  You insult thousands of users time and time again, many of whom you've never even interacted with.  You just assume they must have some sort of mental deficiency because they don't see things the way you do.

oh here we go again social dramatist doomad getting emotional.. trying to poke the bear to talk about persona's.. ill bite

and we have Doomad thats happy that core can write whatever code they like, doomad has said multiple times how he loves that core dont need the communities permission and anyone that opposes core deserves to get thrown off the network BEFORE a feature proposed by core even gets a full vote.

doomad even a few times denied the very existance of consensus and voting,

doomad say stuff like this:
"I don't know where you get this perverse notion that developers need permission from the community before they are allowed to code something. "

Doomad flip flops. all he cares about is defending core and commercialised networks created by devs that want to de-burden bitcoin of its utility. he does not care about bitcoin.

but doomad doesnt want people knowing the roadmap plan. he just want people to just carry on doing as their doing, just download core and carry on without a thought. never to question whats going on, never to wake up to ever have an opposing thought against core. so he doesnt like it when someone comes along and tries waking them up with opposing thoughts.

but doomad does love to poke the bear in a discussion topic and turn it into some social drama, as his way of distracting opposing thoughts and just turn it into some social drama about persona's rather than code/network ethos changes

but here is a lesson
those that want true diverse decentralised network should not be getting excited that one brand/team have 'permissionless' control of new feature implementations

those that want true diverse decentralised network should not be getting excited pre feature activation forks occur. the only time core should instigate a fork is as a result of a feature activation where only a minority of nodes get affected.
NOT as a tool to apartheid / dilute the consensus vote down to sway the vote in cores favour

doomad needs to learn what the real consensus mechanism that handled the byzantine generals theory was, which is the thing that made bitcoins and blockchains such a revolutionary new database technology in 2008-2009.
because by sidestepping such thing with mandated/threatening pre-feature activation forks (like august1st 2017) is not fair/true consensus.

doomad is angry that im just not a ass kissing human centipede, toeing the party line of over promoting devs and their roadmap agenda.

may he either learn to accept diversity and opposing mindsets. or may he continue to be angry that there are people outside his echo chamber that have independant thought and not afraid to use it.

this is a discussion forum not an echo chamber. diverse idea's opinions and discussions should be welcomed
and if "sheep" is the worse insult he can find that i have called people. then doomad should look at his own post history and look at his own slang first, as that would be most shocking

That's actually a good thing. People tend to dislike that what can become a very successful upgrade or crypto currency, just because that development isn't happening on the coin they bought into.

I'm not saying that LN will reduce most crypto currencies to a pile of dust, because they will always have that speculative value and demand, but the payment aspect is what Bitcoin is groing into more and more as time goes by.

People keep shilling coins like Nano, while they don't understand that no one cares about it--people want to deal with Bitcoin and want to see it do well. Nothing comes even close to Bitcoin in that field.

That's Franky1 style. Blockstream and LN

I never fully agree with him but he's somehow right and not only when he says the Bitcoin ethics aren't the same. The thing is he focuses too much on LN. Like if it was the last update to Bitcoin and it won't improve anymore.
We know the Bitcoin ethics aren't the same, so what? Do we close the doors? it doesn't mean it will never change, nor improve. And that's where the community decides...

I will be a sheep from the Elites

Make your views heard.  Are you blindly updating your node to the latest version of Bitcoin Core without paying the slightest bit of attention to what the code actually does?  Do you compile the code yourself so you know exactly what your node is doing and know beyond all reason that you are expressing your own will?  Or are you somewhere in the middle, where you give the recent changes a quick read but generally just go with the flow?  Do you perhaps run a non-Core node because you don't agree with what Core are doing?  Or do you not run a full node at all and just want to weigh in with your observations?

Overall, do you think Core are "in control" of the Bitcoin network?  Or do you think users are the ones who make the decisions?  



It's also not the first time they've landed this accusation:


And probably a few dozen other times, too.

I want to hear your views, because this accusation too often goes unchallenged.  Maybe you've all got him on ignore, I don't know.  Are you sheep?  Or do you have a voice of your own?  Does this user raise any valid points?  Or is it merely trolling?