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.
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.
again your only seeing a hard fork through the eyes of controversial.
No, I am not. This has nothing to do with controversy. A hard fork, by definition, entails creating a new network that is incompatible with the old one. The intention of a hard fork is for users of the old network to migrate to the forked network. There is no propaganda in that, whatsoever.
but by core not even trying to make it (lets hope luke releases it before getting thrown out) then there will never be a healthy majority, due to
the loyal flock wanting core to dominate(even if the flock dont understand the route core prefers) and make decisions for them (centrally)
the loyal flock wanting core to dominate(even if the flock dont understand the route core prefers) and make decisions for them (centrally)
You're blaming the community for supporting the reference implementation. Take it up with the community. Supporting Core's conservative method of rigorous analysis and testing, or their overall roadmap, or simply supporting an implementation that retains Bitcoin's consensus rules, is not anything you can blame Core for. You can blame the lack of convincing arguments by fork proponents for the lack of support to fork. You could also probably blame Ethereum, which has likely scared much of the community away from the risks of hard forks.
so yea bitcoin knots, airbitz and others can have perfect code.. but core fanboys will doomsday call anything not core.. purely because core doesnt want a consensual fork(real onchain capacity).. they want to lead and control decisions. not allow an open decentralized free choice.
"Consensual [hard] fork" is a strange term. Consent flows from users opting into a network. Anyone is free to opt out of the Bitcoin network and consent to a new hard fork. But that doesn't imply at all that all users of the Bitcoin network consent to a hard fork. Knowing that every user consents is not possible in any way, shape or form -- and even if it were, we could only know after the fork had occurred, after which users actually migrate and affirmatively consent to the hard fork's new rules.
the funny thing is. core can easily release 0.14B(segwit+ hardfork) and then just see if people download A or B.
and if 95% have not downloaded version B of their favourite. then it will not activate and nothing is lost.
but by core vetoing any chance of a core version B. they are not even allowing users a free choice, even amungst their own flock
and if 95% have not downloaded version B of their favourite. then it will not activate and nothing is lost.
but by core vetoing any chance of a core version B. they are not even allowing users a free choice, even amungst their own flock
Core has no obligation to attempt to break the consensus rules. I don't know where you get the impression that they do. Anyone is free to fork Core's code and try to convince the community to join them. However, I urge everyone to oppose any fork that attempts to leverage miners against users. That raises serious ethical concerns about whether migrating users actually consent, or whether they felt forced by colluding miners (who have an apparent monopoly on hash rate and thus, confirmations for transactions).