You completely avoided what I asked. "Why don't you fork the code and promote it? See if users actually support your fork? Why do people insist on leveraging hash rate to provoke users to change networks?"
Instead you troll these forums day in, day out, talking shit about Core. What's the point? If people support the rule changes you propose, they will migrate to your fork. Endlessly insulting Core doesn't give merit to your fork.
Instead you troll these forums day in, day out, talking shit about Core. What's the point? If people support the rule changes you propose, they will migrate to your fork. Endlessly insulting Core doesn't give merit to your fork.
to answer your question directly..
anyone can make the most majestic code ever that does exactly as expected. but it would get wrecked in the social drama of going against cores corporate plan of offchain middlemen controls
anyone can make the most majestic code ever that does exactly as expected. but it would get wrecked in the social drama of going against cores corporate plan of offchain middlemen controls
look at the propaganda
to change networks
migrate to your fork
seems you have not understood the difference of consensual and controversial. and you think that a hard fork is only controversial.
trying to scare everyone by saying a fork is not bitcoin by using propaganda buzzwords like "changing networks" or "migrating"
please learn consensual vs controversial
Propaganda?
By definition a hard fork creates a new network. This a matter of fact, not opinion.
What I said didn't contemplate whether a hard fork is controversial. What I said was, why don't you fork the code? Why do you need miners to pressure users to switch clients?
It seems the answer you buried in your long-winded posts was "nobody would support my fork." Okay then. There's your answer.