your a noob with alot to learn
changes used to be made when supermajority are sticking to the same rules thus the blockdata accepted by the majority unites around those rules
just admit that bitcoin has shortcomings one of those is how even though we like it, it is not immutable. for various reasons that would be hard to do and may not make sense to try and do it. but if you're worried about some group of bad actors taking over bitcoin "development" then why would you be against the idea of making bitcoin source code immutable? that really is the only way it can truly be trustless.
but if you want to live in a fantasy land where you think that there's always going to be people acting in your best interests with regards to bitcoin then maybe you can be ok with its current model of development.
LEARN DECENTRALISATION
LEARN CONSENSUS
LEARN BYZANTINE GENERALS TOLERANCE
these things are a byproduct of alot of people running the same software that has the same source code logic. there might be some people that try and run something with different rules but there's not enough of them to overcome the entire network.
LEARN CENTRAL POINT OF FAILURES
obviously you consider the current core developers to be an example of this. so why not advocate for a bitcoin whose source code is immutable. then we could discuss other things like how much it costs to buy a cup of coffee using bitcoin and not have to worry about if developers were opening up bitcoin to exploits by orangutangs...
its not about "immutible"
you are reading echos of idiots that are saying that if core cant change it no one should by which if core cant change it then the code should never change again(immutible)
thats the echo chamber FUD campaign of suggesting that strengthening consensus to require super majority opt-in to activate upgrades would be treated as never upgrading if core are not controlling the upgrade process.. which is the FUD/lies
pretending bitcoin becomes unupgradable without core being the authority is not the facts or the point
its not even what consensus is about. consensus is not about having one ruler who makes decisions and people are to choose to follow the single ruler or make an altcoin(their other fud echos)
the point is that before bitcoin even existed there were cypherpunks trying to create digital money that was different to the authoritarianism of fiat. whereby they were looking to have a system with no central point could control the rules of a currency and no individual could break those rules. but where a majority could align to some good rule policy which does change when there is majority acceptance. in a way that there is no single brand being the major. but unity found in decentralised diversity of brands and software.
bitcoins very invention solved this. consensus and blockchains is not a by-product. its the main feature.
the reason why they seen the elegance of consensus and blockchains solving the decentralisation problem is very much the reason bitcoin got popular in the first place.
you have fallen into the echo chamber trap of thinking that the only two options are: expensive bloated junk crap data with soft/lack of rules. or a ruleset that never changes ever. that is also stuck with the current cludge, where the only option for cludge hater is to make an altcoin..
you have been told bad advice about the way things work and the options available. as the advice you have been told is all about, essentially "accept unscrutinised centralisation or f**k off"
think outside of that echo chamber. actually learn the history of bitcoin and where the problems lay and what actually occured along the way
consensus is about a super majority of the masses voting in a change.
however that has been broken down recently where changes are made to the main protocol rules where it does not require supermajority readiness before new features activate anymore
then came the lack of checks on byte arrangement, byte counting, format requirement data expectations of tx data.
and when you look at who caused it. you notice the same names..
the solution is not to ignore who done it or try to echo chamber "franky wants to break bitcoin, miners want to break bitcoin" actually look at who wrote the changes that made bitcoin annoying to use for the masses.
we as a community are suppose to scrutinise and criticise those that are responsible for code changes of the bitcoin protocol. we are suppose to hold them accountable and responsible when they make errors and yes we are suppose to get them to fix their bugs.
at this current moment trying to offer a differing brand will get rekt becasue the echo chamber is so loud that people are too dumb to see the echo chamber loves the controls and hates to see their idols be responsible or become required to be open to decentralisation. they love the central power house too much
people need to be more open to decentralisation and actually open to peer review and challenging the core devs. then the core devs would and should be more open to proposals not made by just themselves or just their sponsors
the echo chamber of asskissing authoritarianism is what should be dealt with. instead of idiots becoming the echos and trying to call anything not part of the authority. the authoritarians(shifting the blame)
but i guess you seem to have already dug your hole and now you are stuck in it, where the only thing you want to hear is your own echos of the same voices telling you to sit in the hole
goodluck
as for nutildah.
i see you cant be bothered to do the math. for yourself. seems math does not make sense to you.
and i know your game is cry that you cant do math so someone spoonfeeds you the math. and if you dont like who is spoonfeeding you the math you simply shout their math is wrong. which is why i keep saying do your own research so you cant play that ignorant game
so here it is.. and yes i can tell your reply is just going to be to ignore the math.. but hell seems you are crying that you cant do it yourself. so here goes
the value shift of the 128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og 0.01024404 where the first sat sits is here:
12YJUgKwcEmvCuNZexVV1ZTVMciJ1J4S1u 0.00671313 \
16JqNeHqhpBg1SyvSqXR3ShvNY1rJtaTkN 0.00007000 -- 0.16738313
1H5E2CeoXn7nk1sB9kWPzecp1goK8aeVSm 0.16060000 /
128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og 0.01024404
this means that the 0.16738314th sat is the first sat of 0.01024404 (128tAax78tCkzGfHoQETPFiLRJV2RkB2og)
so follow how much is being spent. in order(counting sats) to see where that sat ends up
so count the sats
here ill show you
the inputs being spent total 5.01000002btc (5.0079479 if ignoring the fee)
where by the "first byte" of the block reward is the 0.16738314th sat (if you ignore fee spent first)
so you look at the outputs and notice the first 5btc go to.. wait for the logic to set in. wait for the maths to settle into your head.. yep the "first sat"(of the blockreward) inside the spend of the tx in question goes to... 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/3d8bf3ff4137ba65da395e9d545eb53c230b58411f4289a3c2a037f2c64fa20bwhich then because the "first sat of blockreward" is stil part of the first 99% of the 5btc not the last 1% .. then still goes to the 1GQdrgqAbkeEPUef1UpiTc4X1mUHMcyuGW in
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd?i=0check it out for yourself..
do the math
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/070812ee9cb49356b352eb760316872198a44b8f38e42ac66afef72ef946b4dd?i=0