Quote from: franky1 on September 07, 2016, 01:49:00 AM

Quote from: Sam Weir on September 07, 2016, 12:12:56 AM

Quote from: franky1 on September 06, 2016, 08:35:16 PM

if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent

You have it backwards. Core isn't trying to change rules without consent. They have not proposed to break consensus at all. Soft forks are implicitly accepted by bitcoin users since the Bitcoin software accepts the longest, valid chain. Arguing against soft forks is arguing that the longest, valid chain is not Bitcoin. Pretty silly.

consensus=consent.

the NEW RULES and new verification requirements doesnt require consent in a softfork. old nodes cant block or invalidate or orphan a softforks new rules.. they just blindly pass it on unchecked

Consent isn't required to soft fork. Did you not read the above post? Because it's accurate. Soft forks are a matter of processing power (i.e. longest chain), not a matter of consensus rules. A hard fork breaks the rules that users consented to. Soft forks don't.

Quote from: franky1 on September 07, 2016, 01:49:00 AM

passing it on unchecked is not consenting, or agreeing. its no longer being fully part of the consensus mechanism. because they dont have the full list of rules any more.

Nodes implicitly agree by accepting the longest valid chain. That's bitcoin. Since Segwit transactions are valid according to the consensus rules (and non-updated nodes do validate transactions against the consensus rules), there is no consensus issue.

Quote from: franky1 on September 07, 2016, 01:49:00 AM

infact what they think is "blocksize" has a totally different meaning to softfork nodes..

The only consensus issue relevant here is maxblocksize. Segwit will not allow the violation of it. Non-issue.

Quote from: franky1 on September 07, 2016, 01:49:00 AM

but hey lets just tell everyone that their nodes are perfectly fin being blind, no longer verifying the new data.. infact lets just tell everyone that old nodes are (wrongly) still full nodes).

Not verifying new data suggests that non-updated nodes will allow invalid transactions/blocks onto their chain. That is not true. Non-updated nodes are still validating transactions against the consensus rules.

Quote from: franky1 on September 07, 2016, 01:49:00 AM

lets pretend there isnt any consensus (consent) issues purely to let bitcoin change without nodes having to make a choice, lets just brush consensus(consent) under the carpet and pretend consensus(consent) was never part of bitcoin.
lets just call it CORE rules instead of consensus rules.

Consent = agreeing to the software's rules. You consent by running the software. Soft forking has nothing to do with the software's rules. They are network rules imposed by miners.

Shall we abolish P2SH now? Because you don't want to accept the longest valid chain?