1) You can't know what I've read or what I haven't read.
2) Your completely intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of Segwit shows that either:
2.1) You haven't read either one.
2.2) You have read it, but you don't understand it.
2) Your completely intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of Segwit shows that either:
2.1) You haven't read either one.
2.2) You have read it, but you don't understand it.
1. you have admitted you cant read C++, you ave admitted you cant read walls of text
2.1. i have quote code, i have quoted documentation. i have even shown examples of simple tweaks that could be considered as something more of the community could unite around
2.2 i have actually told you about the emphasis of the key utility and not the activation itself being the important part of segwits half gesture.
and all you can do is pleaded ignorant for a couple months then suddenly find a script that admits what have have said, but with subtle word twists.
such as how its a 'opt-in'.
but your still not getting the point. its not a network fix. its not a consensus implementation. its a back door half gesture with only if's buts and maybe's
yet the actual network effect is negative (the tier network)
atleast get passed the word twisting from your groupy mindset of blockstream adoration.. as thats temporary. just like segwits half baked gestures are temporary..
try to think with a critical hat and not a utopian sales pitch hat.
your only argument its to literally fail at describing segwit and to also fail at pidgeon holing me.
think about bitcoins 120+year and not blockstreams couple year 'experiment'
I'm amazed you still have the patience to respond to this troll.
Lauda loves to argue technical points, and when an argument is refuted,
he just pivots his argument to a different point.
He's a successful troll because he's been able to use this tactic over and over
while being so wrong and arrogant than he baits you into further responding
to nonsense.
