Topic: Satoshi's original idea... - page 2. (Read 1343 times)

my reply would be
separate teams have separate software that all have their own proposals platform (suggestion box)
then the community(not one team) then poke at the suggestions and improve on them until all teams can agree on one master proposal

then when it comes to a fair agreement/compromise on a fair acceptance. each team then release a version of their software..
lets call it a B version. which thee community can download that includes the master proposal

EG core have version 0.17a which would be the normal version of current active rules. and then a 0.17b that includes the master proposal the community has should high agreement of
where the other teams also have a version B of the same master proposal

then if all the brands version B's show high activation.. then cores next 0.18a(active rules) would the activated master proposal
if the master proposal doesnt get consensus. the its just not activated...  and cores 0.18a wont have the master in it. but atleast each team would get to offer the CHOICE without any brand control fights

that way its not a you need to download only cores latest version or get kicked off the network. but people can download other teams too.. and where the proposal is a separate thing.. thus its not a brand debate. but a consensus debate because the proposals are not forced by any single brand as they are offered by all brands (as version b) while also letting users not be forced into it by them also having the currently active consensus version(a) available to 'no vote'

that way its actually consensus opt-in while having freedom to choose a brand..rather than a follow one team or else

Honestly franky1, I have been thinking about this, "would it be good if a group, or a group of influential groups control the nodes and do a UASF whenever they need to to satisfy their motives?".

That will be a good topic worthy to discuss to open the eyes of the community.

here you go windfury
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
it was on bitcoin.org
heres the link direct
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

to answer the big issue of consensus bypass (core control the network) and can bypass consensus


read it multiple times without a core defense cap on. but with a bitcoin consensus/security cap on
core are saying they can now change the way the network does things without needing community approval

seriously, thinking not validating signature is ok??!
seriously thinking one team should be allowed to trojan in(inflight SF) new code without network approval(consensus) is ok!?

if anyone says yes to both points then you care nothing about the bitcoin network security and only care that core should be the monarchs
shame on you

Core's roadmap? I have been looking all over bitcoin.org and on Github but I cannot find an "official" roadmap. Can you tell me what you believe Core's roadmap is?

read what you said atleast 3 times and actually recognise the flaw in why you think a full node should not care
if you think not verifying signatures is cool and fine. then i pitty your lack of care for bitcoin security

lol
do you even read code. read bips

the august 1st event. was not about block format.
the event was about a FLAG. yea bitcoin mining pools could have been running bitcoin v0.10 and making legacy blocks on august 1st.(your failure to understand)

 but they were threatened with the mandatory consensus bypass that unless they just simply change a version number (not change block format that requires segwit code).. simply change a version number. they would get their blocks rejected

yep CODE WRITTEN BY DEVS WOULD KILL OFF BLOCKS

it was the mandatory code made by core devs (luke JR and others) that made it that even pools using NON SEGWIT NODES HAD TO (not voluntary) flag a version number to prevent their LEGACY BLOCKS from being rejected

then when the CORE CODE misleadingly activated segwit due to the FAKE VOTE induced by the mandatory threat. weeks later would mining pools actually have to run segwit format blocks

it wasnt an opt-in. it was a stick this bumper sticker on your car to say your a fan, or get off the core road

I see your strategy now. You throw out walls of text riddled with dishonest statements and inaccuracies, then you neglect to respond to any of the arguments other people make.

This is what I said:


Legacy nodes validate Segwit transactions in numerous ways. You obviously take serious issue with how Bitcoin scripts work. It upsets you that there are Bitcoin scripts that nodes validate to true without verifying a signature. That's an issue you have with the Bitcoin protocol.

This dynamic was part of Bitcoin's design since inception. Satoshi spoke about this in 2010:

In other words, if you want your node to fully understand every aspect of all transactions, then you should upgrade your node.

Refusing to upgrade to a compatible node isn't a matter of consensus. As long as all different versions remain forward and backward compatible, consensus has never been broken. That's why we're all still on the same network!


When you make a groundless statement like that, you should elaborate and explain how it works.

Then I can pick apart the inaccurate/dishonest statements.

The "tactic" of explaining exactly how Bitcoin with SegWit works, you mean?  Squatter makes more sense in a single post than you could ever make in a thousand.  



psst hint:  It was miners.  Core are a dev team, so how could Core instigate something if they definitely couldn't make a block because they aren't even mining?  (logic prevails over anything franky1 has ever posted in his life)

If you were actually capable of logic, you'd also understand that you don't need to have any hashpower at all to fork yourself off the network by running incompatible code.  Whether BCH had barely any hash or no hash at all, it makes no difference in the cold, hard light of uncompromising reality.  If I altered my node to enforce incompatible rules and not follow consensus, I can remove myself from the network at the very next block.  If I'm not mining, my new, incompatible chain will immediately stall.  Would that be Core's fault too in franky1's fantasy lalaland?

squatter. so much fail in your statements i think your just twisting things for entertainment

saying that a full node not signature validating deserves a "so what" response. goes to show you dont even understand the concept of being a full validation node.

as for saying one node sends an output to another node.. shows you dont understand what gets transmitted or the whole blockcreation, relay, validation. process

why oh why are soo many of the core defenders so lacking in basic concepts yet keep circling the same social drama play of meandering and bear poking.

squatter you might have better luck joining a kardashian fan club if your just going to follow the same tactics of the other guys.
have a nice day

Actually, no. This pertains to both transactions and nodes. They are inextricably linked. Segwit nodes can send Segwit outputs to legacy nodes. Legacy nodes can send legacy outputs to Segwit nodes.

This compatibility has absolutely nothing to do with network topology. You're just fundamentally confused about what "compatibility" means, or you're purposefully being dishonest.


Actually, they do accept Segwit transactions as valid. If they didn't, they would reject such blocks. You may want to review how invalidity is treated on the Bitcoin network. Blocks containing invalid transactions are simply ignored.

Legacy nodes can't validate the signature of a Segwit transaction. So what? They still validate the POW, the inputs and outputs, the scripts, etc. Everything is validated the same way as before. Legacy nodes are just 1) accepting and propagating valid transactions from/to the network or 2) receiving valid outputs that have already been accepted by the network.

Your fundamental issue here is with how the Bitcoin protocol works, not Segwit.


"Consensus" = the Bitcoin protocol's consensus rules. It's not some sort of a democratic vote or something -- that's never how Bitcoin (or any network) worked.

Segwit is 100% compatible with the consensus rules, so there is nothing for your node to "reject." There is no voting. It's either compatible or not. You don't have any say over that.

If you think node operators should be able to "vote" on everything other compatible nodes do, then you don't understand how networks operate. You don't get to decide what the rest of the network does. You can OPT-OUT if you want by shutting down your "pigeon English" node, but that's the extent of your power.

I think Satoshi's idea was to create a currency that can help people gain back financial freedom from Central Banking, Banking and Government's dirty politics and surveillance.

the github changes stats are meaningless.. the majority of core changes are not for bitcoin network benefit. but to mutate bitcoin for LN network benefit.

We still don't know who is Satoshi Nakamoto is and why he developed Bitcoin. But Bitcoin is now the most used and popular digital currency and it has changed the idea of centralized money system indeed.

Thank you Franky1 for the explanation, but at least the article can tell us that BTC and BCH are very different. I also understand that they are different based on the GitHub analysis. furthermore, we will see how people cheat with technology. They are purely doing business not technology development for humanity.

that article has so main fails in it

1. bitcoin cash didnt not cause the bilateral split (consensus bypass on august 1st).
even the blockchain data can prove that by looking at the time stamp on the blockchains of which first made the diverting block(split)... (psst hint: it was core.. cash didnt even roll out until hours later. even the segwit fans made a big deal that cash didnt make a block for hours.. so how could cash instigate something if they couldnt even make a block to cause a controversal split(logic prevails over social drama tricks))
also the mandated USAF and the NYA were node shuffling tricks on the core network side..

2. people like ver are not coders. so thats a funny. you know.. its obvious.. oh wait. lets spell it out. ver didnt code it so how could he cause it.(he is just a social drama PR guy, not a dev)

3. cash is another network, they cant affect the core network so a year later people finger pointing at them .. makes no sense. do people point fingers at clams and worry clams is a threat?

the whole kardasian family drama of core vs cash is just a misdirection. just a ploy to not let people see what core actually did and instead of pointing to code proof. the finger pointers just point to the social drama of peoples faces, such as a video screen shot of a guy sticking up his middle finger (wow mega proof of code modification can be found in some pr guys middle finger)

to much attention is given to social drama tricks. yet it seems as soon as people talk about code, network protocol changes, all that happens in reply is mud slinging of insults. and more finger point of social drama of if you dont support core f**k off its their software let them control the network(facepalm)

I'm not sure to argue with you but I think you should read this article: https://coinsutra.com/btc-vs-bch-bitcoin-cash/

I don't know exactly what the purpose of Satoshi is to create bitcoin, maybe you are right that Satoshi wants to rebel the existing monetary system. I think Satoshi also understands the problem of trust and scalability in advance. Trust about bitcoin can be answered when Satoshi doesn't exist, but he forgets to renew scalability, even though when bitcoin experienced hardfork and gave birth to BCH that had a block size bigger than bitcoin, they still remained loyal to bitcoin. Maybe in the future, i think Satoshi will give birth to a more perfect new technology later, even though he doesn't call me Satoshi.  

Since I learned about the existence of Bitcoin, I constantly admire the very idea of ​​its creation. It was so hard to invent it.

if you think the only choice option is bitcoin core or bitcoin cash. then your still not seeing the bigger picture.
my main gripe is too many people think the only option is cores roadmap or F**k off

But franky1, Bitcoin is like any other software "experiment" that could fail. It evolves. Plus if "Satosh's Vision" was the goal then would you agree that Bitcoin Cash should be "The Bitcoin"? Do you believe their roadmap to achieve that vision to be technically superior than what the Core developers are doing?