contrary to doomad(he cant stick to one narrative)
the sole main full node reference client that all other wallets emulate/follow is core.
the core devs admit they are a central point of failure and they are the "reference client" aka the core(center) of the network..(yep they did not pick the brand name randomly)..
people dont choose to run core and then cores new rules activate.. its instead cores new rules activate and people then have to rush to run core updates to stay in full node validation and archival status
and thats how core dominated the network
heck even doomad admitted to it previously that he loves that core are the defacto dev group of protocol change decisions
yep doomad and those involved in core REKT campaigned any other brand that wanted to be a true full node that had its own proposal mechanism and its own new ruleset implementation effort
and doomad knows it and when sober he admits it.. seems he is drunk right now and cant remember what he said previous to this morning
funny part is
just last week doomad was saying the opposite saying how there was no true consensus and saying how people dont vote dont consent and core devs should and do get to push through any code they please..
now doomad is trying to back flip and say things the way i said how bitcoin worked 2009-16 (hard consensus era) but HE pretending its still the case now. even though recent posts of his was adoring the soft consensus methods of core in recent years
he can never get the right narrative for the correct period of time
doomad:
pick a narrative and stick to it
A. your old misleading narrative that there never was true/hard consensus. and it was just a franky dream
B changing rules requires majority node consent with a true mass consent/acceptance/readiness BEFORE activation. where nodes had to upgrade first
c. there was hard consensus requiring mass upgrade pre activation.. but has been softened in recent years where rules change without mass upgrade first
I think what the demented sociopath is trying to say (although failing dismally at it) is that he hates users having a choice. At the moment, users can either choose to run:
a) a SegWit-and-Taproot-Compatible node
b) a SegWit node that doesn't support Taproot
c) a node that supports neither SegWit nor Taproot
Whichever they freely choose to run, they can send and receive Bitcoin transactions in their chosen supported formats.
However, franky1 would rather see a system where SegWit and Taproot never existed because 6% of the network hold a veto preventing 94% of the network from enjoying new features they might want to use . He would rather see only hardforks, where users would get divided into separate chains and then the weaker chain dies off, leaving users no alternatives (and there were softforks prior to 2017, but franky1 is either too deluded or too pig-ignorant to acknowledge this and persists with the outright and egregious lie that all forks prior to 2017 were hardforks). With the way things work at the moment, the entire network can remain together and users opt-in to the features they want. He calls this "weakening consensus", but I would maintain that a network which keeps users together is stronger than a network that drives a wedge between users every time they don't agree on something.
//EDIT:
Repeat it all you like, no one is adopting your bullshit, make-believe definitions. You are the fool. You can choose to validate everything by being SegWit and Taproot compatible, but no one is going to force you to do that if you don't want to. You have the choice, but all you do is moan about the fact that you and everyone else have been offered that choice. Again, you want a network where users have no choice but to obey fuhrer-franky1, the psychotic despot.
//DOUBLE_EDIT:
Said the headcase who has spent the last half-a-decade or more whining about "fake consensus", "bypassed consensus" and now his latest gormless catchphrase "soft consensus" because he doesn't like the manner in which miners and nodes reached consensus to introduce the features he despises so much. I'm happy with the consensus we have. You are the one who wants to change consensus to prevent future softforks, but you have no code (and no clue, apparently).
But yeah, please keep asking for the impossible and then whining like a baby when you don't get it. It shows real maturity and growth on your part.