I only ask that people try to understand that leveraging miners against users to try to force a network migration is unethical, and I ask that people reflect on whether it is right for miners to provoke users into removing consensus rules. Hard forks are a matter of user consent, not miner consent.
Miner consent only establishes the longest valid chain (so, it enables soft forks). It has nothing to do with the consensus rules that every node on the network enforces.
cores softfork does not need user consent at actual code requirement level. (as part of the real consensus mechanism).
absolutely no nodes needs to upgrade to make a softfork possible.
but a mining pool DOES need to upgrade to be able to validate signatures of a segwit transaction to include them in blocks.
yes mining pools actually validate data to ensure it doesnt orphan.. so miners are not there just to decide blockheight..
seriously im starting to think im talking to a noob right now
core adding in an activation mechanism. is not due to consensus rules requiring it, but because they have bypassed the consensus mechanism to be able to change the rules without using the consensus mechanism and as an afterthought putting in a social activation mechanism to pretend its the same thing as consensus mechanism
but fundamentally not required.
old nodes are not forward compatible in the sense of being able to validate signatures of a segwit transaction. they are tricked into just passing on the data unchecked. this is not ensuring an old node remains a full validation node.. but just a blind participant in a game of pass the parcel
you say that segwit has been around for months.. on other networks, not bitcoin.
there are many BITCOIN implementations that have code for a hardfork that have been around since last year.. core have only achieved having the code IN BITCOIN a few weeks ago.
your rebuttal is like saying bitcoin has had ~2.5 minute blocks for 5 years because there is code being tested on a different network.
(segnet does not have 7 years of bitcoin data and is not talking to 6000 bitcoin nodes.. much like litecoin isnt)
but i will just laugh at your other false assumptions because its obvious no matter what core does, they are your king.. you have lost full understanding of decentralization and have been fooled into blindly following the centralization of false choice
by the way. if you have not already been indoctrinated to start favouring monero (the usual path of those wanting to keep bitcoin down) you soon will be. much like all the other core fanboys.
i have seen it happen many times, you probably are not going to be immune to it, because you are already repeating the standard spoonfed false rhetoric and hypocrisy
so the day you start thinking monero is the future, at this point realise that someone had warned you that your 'friends' have been tweaking at your mind to move you to favour monero with all the spoon fed false scripts. slap yourself and wake up
...
but here is the mind blowing part.
because core (didnt have to) but are putting in an activation mechanism where 95% of nodes need to use a piece of software..
guess what.
put the real capacity block buffer increase (meaning 2mb baseblock and 4mb segwit blockweight) so that when it activates the network CONTINUES to add new blocks onto the chain. and the minority get orphaned (via consensus mechanism)
after all there is no point running a full node if your not going to be validating transactions and just blindly passing on data you cant check.
killing 2 birds within one stone(mechanism/oppertunity)and dont reply with the fake rhetoric of split coins, which can only occur by blacklisting nodes to by pass the orphan mechanism