Topic: Is this "ban evasion"? (Read 334 times)

"Meta" boards now is "Development & Technical Discussion" board

Even if it were possible, it would not change anything of any significance.

Since he's not going to listen to me, can someone else explain to him why everything he just said was absolute nonsense?  


//EDIT:


Yeah, going to lock it now before fantasy1 tries to post more technobabble insanity.

the "perfectly valid reasons to disconnect those users if they wish to run incompatible software".. those people you speak of were running software that was perfectly compatible with consensus 2009-(july)2017

the rule was to ignore blocks without bit4/1. it was not to ignore blocks with bit6-8... now your getting really flip flopy and not understanding what occured.

bit1 and bit4 were not part of active consensus in 2009-(july)2017
yep you got things wrong again
those without bit1/4 were not incompatible with consensus2009-2017


the disconnect was of those not flagging a NEW temporary thing(flags bit4 and bit1)
it was not to disconnect people running new features consensus has never recognised.. quite the opposite

the disconnect was of those NOT SHOWING new bits
and that disconnecting of nodes relaying non flag 4/1 blocks was done before segwit activation occured

any consensus update if there is going to be a clash of incompatibility means. you cant go back in time and change the network magic of old nodes.. so its the new software that has to change its magic if there was a  fork

or better yet. dont cause a fork before a consensus change. so that there is no fork to cause a clash
........

you would have had a better argument if you didnt flip flop.. and said something like
bit 4 was a mini consensus of july that at 80% for 269+366 blocks would enforce new rules.. not of new transaction formats(segwit) but a new consensus of ignoring oldtimers blocks.
(immoral but consensus defined under the new rule)
and then expressing how your adore consensus because although immoral..  a mini july consensus did activate(but under false pretense)... then allowed august consensus of 2016 blocks for segwit to activate due to lack of opposition blocks being counted

atleast you could then claim something resembling consensus actions
(even when the 'july bit4 consensus' was not segwit but was mandatory fork.. and was not to remove blocks that were incompatible with 2009-17 formats.. but to remove blocks that were compatible with 2009-17)

but hey. instead you flip flop through lots of different versions of events and pretend old timers using code that had not changed were somehow the enemy and they somehow attacked the network.. (weird mindset)

edit to address the comment below
the blockchain data shows the events. as i describe
the bip info shows what the bits actually flag for. as i describe
(heck you couldnt even get the bit4 threshold percentage right let alone the order of events let alone which one activated segwit let alone what the percentages were in july in the leadup to the mandatory fork)

maybe you should read them first

I'm not surprised you've managed to totally misinterpret what I've said.  I'm pretty sure I didn't say the parts I've marked as disputed.  If anyone (other than franky1) can corroborate the above accusation and say they also believe I've said those things, feel free to make yourselves known.  I'll offer a retraction if I have misspoken.  

My stance is, and always has been, that BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated Segwit with 90+% of the hashrate, but instead of acknowledging that, you continue to moan about a totally different BIP 141 and bit 1 flag only being at 45%:


You are talking about the wrong flag here.  Technical fact.  Do not even try to argue or weasel your way out of it.  No "do research", no "scenarios", no "social drama".  You are talking about the wrong flag.  That is not how SegWit was activated.  

I then went on to point out that the small number of people being forked off the network were using neither bit 1 nor bit 4.  The had network service bit 6 or bit 8.  This is not consensus being "broken".  This is consensus in action.  A rule was introduced that any node with bit 6 or bit 8 would be disconnected due to concerns over the risk of replay attacks as a rival network had launched and had not yet changed their network magic.  This is all well documented and completely factual, but you ignore it every time it is said to you.  You maintain the stance that this is somehow immoral.  I have stated my view you're just being emotional and there there are perfectly valid reasons to disconnect those users if they wish to run incompatible software.  It had nothing to do with trying to rig the result in favour of activating SegWit.



"Mentioning details" about flags does not constitute a technical post unless you UNDERSTAND what those flags mean and you don't try to twist the data you're looking at to support narratives that simply aren't true.  When you do that, you cross the line from "technical" to "techno-babble".  And you cross that line OFTEN.  It wasn't a "tactic", consensus never "broke" and it absolutely will happen again if it is deemed necessary to protect the network.  "Should" is an opinion, not a technical argument.

funny part is i was making posts on a topic specifically about the consensus being broke. i explained how blockchain data shows how consensus broke in the past and that tactic should never be used again..(OBVIOUSLY)
it was very much on topic and mentioned technical details about bit flags.

it was other individuals that began the backlash and adhoms (doomad) who's only rebuttalled using social techniques and lies about changing how events occured
no technical data to explain his opinion of his version of events

i even asked him to back up his claims using blockchain data.
so reasonable requests were made about the technicals..
doomad rebuttal's with more social adhoms but no technicals

my claim bit4 contentious hardfork to remove opposition to achieve 100% bit1 consensus activation of new feature
his claim:(over the years and recently)
   flip: bit1 then bit4..  (soft)
   flop: bit4 had nothing to do with anything and only bit1 occurred
   flipflop: those not wanting activation done the bit4 fork
   flopflip: bit4 had no effect

also to note it was doomad that was slinging around the most insults and lies

strangely gmax agreed with doomad to remove me. simply because i bit at doomads pokes.. even though it was doomad that was doing the adhom trolling.

seems doomad/gmax want to pretend they dislike ad-hom stuff. even when they trigger adhom stuff when technical details on the immutable blockchain prove they are wrong about their versions of events

THEY should try to be mature next time and maybe stop trying to delete posts just because it makes them look bad.. WHY?
well its simple. some people actually want to know facts and details even if it makes some individuals look bad.

devs should learn from their mistakes. not hide and repeat their mistakes
devs should not pull favour towards loyal fans. and instead be mature and pull favour to facts and learning oppertunities when mistakes are highlighted

so please learn from your mistakes. otherwise you will always have people reminding you of your mistakes

as for loyceV.
his selection of a particular chart that makes it look like bitcoin is going blow up to 700% of 'early adopters' and then crash down to 60% of early adopters

sory but bitcoin does not follow that chart.
infact that chart is known to be used in many economic circles not to prove longevity/trust/admiration. but to sugdest implosion/near death and to not use an asset as a store of wealth

hense why i called him out.. there are many economic charts and many different models he could have chosen. but that particular selection. while not actually showing bitcoin progress so far. suggests a bitcoin near death and a presumption to not trust bitcoin as a store of value

His posts in The Lightning Network FAQ made me put him on ignore. I had forgotton he was banned on that board, otherwise I would have reported his posts instead of responding.
He's now making up lies about me in Politics & Society. My personal text shows how much I care

FWIW,  I wouldn't support banning franky1 globally at least on the basis of his tech subform activity if he agrees to leave the tech sub-forum alone.

When he made a new post again recently I hoped that he'd conduct himself in a way a little more compatible with a tech subforum-- so I didn't immediately start removing them, but let things play out a bit to see if it would be different... but clearly not, and after a few days achow pinged me to ask if I agreed with removing him again.

(And holy hell, I missed that were 49 posts... I guess I wasn't paying enough attention.  As always, I prefer multi-factor administration and unless something is obviously spam or totally offtopic I'll usually wait for at least one other person to complain before acting.--- But this is a bit extreme, sorry DooMAD for being asleep at the switch.)

Perhaps he's a bit prone to jump to adhominem and conspiracy theories in other subforums too, but at least most of the time there aren't people trying to have a more substantive technical discussion that he reliably doesn't contribute to... and he has also made many posts in other subforums that I've enjoyed.

i accept that my posts will be deleted in that category.

but some seem to hate that i talk at all about topics they dont want me to talk about

oh well their actions say more about them than it says about me

but it does make a good read once my posts are removed and only show the social drama queens back up each other with friendships and not facts

atleast i have blockdata on my side. i dont need loyalists and social drama queens as my defence

just a shame that certain categories only want certain people to talk. it makes a certain categories become centrally one sided

In addition, gmaxwell noted that his posts will be deleted and not that he will be banned.
Not endorsing anyone but afaik this can't be considered as a reason for permaban but doesn't make him immune either from a punishment.
I prefer to report such things in details rather than starting a topic that will turn to a fighting zone, we have enough here tho

doomad.

i know you lost the technical debate and got angry. as you cannot use blockchain data to back up your assertions. yet i can and have.
i know you didnt accept defeat or reality of events.
i know you reverted to social drama trolling and wanting a ban to avoid accepting defeat.
but the funny part is now my posts were removed. all thats left is your social drama. and it is making your reputation look even worse

next time you want a real technical debate. please reply with blockchain data and not insults.
and yea be man enough to accept reality and not ignorant enough to want to delete posts that explain reality to you in ways you dont like

blockchain data shows before the august 24th activation. there was a august 1st event where a certain group ignored normal 2009-2017 consensus blocks(that did not have temporary bit1 or bit4)
the group only accepted blocks with a temporary flag. thus the fork occured by the certain group wanting a biased blockchain set approving a new rule activation

the blocks with bit4 also had the bit1 flag that was the requirement of consensus activation.
meaning. the bit1 flat moved from 45% to 100% simply by removing any blocks that used the standard 2009-2017(no flag) format and only accepted blocks that had the certain flags that agree to a consensus change

the blockchain data is very clear. its immutable data cannot lie. and its data shows what i said to be true

and i dare you to try using blockchain data and not insults as your rebuttal

if you cannot use blockchain data. then be a man and accept defeat. and stop crying about how you want people banned for proving you wrong.

SMF software can't block people from posting on particular boards - mods have to manually delete posts whack-a-mole style.

*Unless you make the boards accessible to certain ranks only like how the Donators and Staff boards are hidden, but this only really works if the scenario is to allow some and deny the rest. It's downright cumbersome to enforce if the problem is "allow all but deny some".

I'm not sure if he can ban (he's not a global mod) but he can delete the posts as he stated and I would suggest to report any franky1's posts you see on that board.

Banning him permanently would be too harsh IMO since this wasn't a real forum-wide ban, just one mod's policy.

It think it looks like achow is dealing with it.

He made a post today at some point about it.

He has the ability to give franky1 a ban if he deems it necessary. I assume mods consult with each other too (since there are specific boards for them to do so).

According to this topic, a forum member is banned from posting in that particular subforum.  After a while, they started posting there again.  I had been wondering if the ban was temporary and had now expired, but a mod has confirmed the ban is still in effect.  So that user has been wilfully ignoring the ban and posting anyway.  49 times this month, no less.  

Should they be permanently banned from the forum for ban evasion?