b. no one can put a LN onion payment into the bitcoin blockchain. nor a litecoin transaction into bitcoins blockchain as a valid bitcoin payment.. understand how onion payments and litecoin transactions dont meet the format or test of a bitcoin transaction
c. no one can just change the block subsidy from 6.25 to 200btc without full network agreement.. which has been agreed and given permission to only change only every 210k blocks and agreed that it will only change by halving
Yes. Because these are the rules, among others, that network participants freely choose to abide by when they use Bitcoin. By using this network, everyone is actively consenting to these rules. If a user were to break these rules and try to add something to the chain which does not conform, they will no longer be compatible with this chain. They would be forked off and would then need to form a new chain of their own.
You seem to struggle with the distinction between INDIVIDUAL consent and COLLECTIVE consent.
You are welcome to have opinions on how "soft" the rules are, but as an individual, you cannot unilaterally block changes to the rules. You are free to leave, but you have no influence over the collective will of the network. And crying that everyone else is somehow breaching your individual rights by using "soft" rules does not change the fact that they are the accepted rules of this network. If enough people run code that permits something to happen, then that thing can happen whether you like it or not. As a collective, those securing the chain do not require your personal, individual, permission or consent to change the rules. Again, prove me wrong. Show me that you can prevent any of it. SegWit, LN, Taproot or any future softforks. Provide the evidence that you can make any of it fail to exist.
Bitcoin does not care about "what had always existed". It only recognises what is valid according to the current rules the majority are enforcing at any given time. And that includes rules created by opt-in softforks. You can try to dictate what you perceive to be invalid, but you will fail. Every. Single. Time. Because all you have are opinions. No code. And seemingly no fellow users with which you could form a new totalitarian, closed-source, freedom-hating, fully-censored network.
Please create some code. Please find some of your fellow nazis who are as bat-shit loony as you and build your disgusting, hate-filled abomination of a network together. I'd love to see how far you get. But given the absolutely zero progress you've made in convincing anyone of anything since 2017, I'm assuming you wouldn't get far. And you know this too. So instead, you'll keep using Bitcoin, despite how much you loathe it. And the collective majority will continue adding new opt-in features that they would like to see. And there's absolutely nothing you can do about it.
//EDIT: response to franky1's moronic reply:
grow up
Yeah, I'm literally the only user. Oh wait...
Number of LN Nodes at time of writing: 16,417
It's almost as though a collective of people sees value in the technology...
You grow up.
Of course they could. But they'd have to run some code to do that. And as far as I can see, no one is doing that. The collective majority are continuing to run the code that allows it. And that's their choice.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can talk about changes all you like. But unless you code something, or pay someone to code something for you, you will NEVER achieve ANYTHING. You think you can make a better alternative? Go build it. Put up or shut up.
And the same applies to anyone else. If you genuinely believe you idea is worth considering, don't wait for permission. Just build it. People might start using it. After all, it worked for this Casey Rodarmor chap. He's clearly achieved more in the last month than franky1 ever will in his sad, pathetic life. You might not like him very much right now, but Casey is living testament to the fact that I'm right.
you know only the core devs can merge in a fix. and you dont want them to do it nor do you want people to ask them to
With the explicit understanding that my individual personal preferences are equally as unimportant as yours in the grand scheme of things... Yes:
I'd rather not see users or devs resort to some short-sighted, reactionary lynch-mob mentality.
I'd rather not see those who should know better foolhardily abandoning one of Bitcoin's fundamental tenets and primary selling points.
I'd rather not see idiots making mountains out of molehills when the network is sufficiently robust to survive a bit of congestion.
I'd rather not see the loss of something as hugely significant as censorship resistance when it's something we could easily avoid with the application of a little fucking patience.
Sorry for pointing out what should be obvious consequences to your massive crybaby shit-fit. I know it causes problems with you selling your false narratives to other readers of this topic. Please, don't let me stop you filling their screens with mindless bullshit about how totalitarianism has all the answers. And how we could have a perfectly efficient system if we just abandon all our principles and let frankenfuher1 decide what to do.
Get rekt.