Is this Franky guy just a total troll? I'm feeling like I've been trolled. Can't believe I took like 45 minutes to write that post, only to have him ignore every single point, yet again. And here he is, foaming at the mouth, babbling incoherently about "core fanboys" and "monero is the future."
What a fucking mouth breather.
I'm not going to waste time responding to your garbage post, Franky. This is the only thing of note that you said:
Not sure where you think code should be tested, if not on a testnet. Also, Segnet has been live for many months prior to Segwit's introduction to the testnet. You realize that forks like Unlimited and Classic have only been run on testnet, right? Fun testnet fact: Recently, Roger Ver's pool -- marking blocks as BIP 109 on Classic's testnet -- mined BIP 109 violating transactions (did not enforce sigop limit). This caused a fork; Classic nodes correctly rejected the longer invalid chain. The fork continued for a month (it may still be ongoing, not sure); no one bothered to notice or care. To allow something like this to happen to the Classic testnet for more than a month is beyond embarrassing -- it's fucking pathetic. That's got to make you question both the BU and Classic teams (and idiots like Roger Ver). This shows the idiocy of BU not enforcing sig op limits while flagging support for BIP 109. The forkers are cannibalizing each other.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4zqd7g/roger_ver_does_your_bitcoin_classic_pool_on/
And stop spreading lies about non-updated nodes "not validating." They validate everything according to the consensus rules. To reiterate Satoshi (emphasis mine):
Bitcoin is clearly not for you, Franky, since you apparently believe that miners mining the longest valid chain = "bypassing the consensus mechanism." It's painfully obvious that you have some deep misunderstandings of the protocol. Or perhaps you really do intend to deceive people.
What a fucking mouth breather.
I'm not going to waste time responding to your garbage post, Franky. This is the only thing of note that you said:
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)
(segnet does not have 7 years of bitcoin data and is not talking to 6000 bitcoin nodes.. much like litecoin isnt)
Not sure where you think code should be tested, if not on a testnet. Also, Segnet has been live for many months prior to Segwit's introduction to the testnet. You realize that forks like Unlimited and Classic have only been run on testnet, right? Fun testnet fact: Recently, Roger Ver's pool -- marking blocks as BIP 109 on Classic's testnet -- mined BIP 109 violating transactions (did not enforce sigop limit). This caused a fork; Classic nodes correctly rejected the longer invalid chain. The fork continued for a month (it may still be ongoing, not sure); no one bothered to notice or care. To allow something like this to happen to the Classic testnet for more than a month is beyond embarrassing -- it's fucking pathetic. That's got to make you question both the BU and Classic teams (and idiots like Roger Ver). This shows the idiocy of BU not enforcing sig op limits while flagging support for BIP 109. The forkers are cannibalizing each other.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4zqd7g/roger_ver_does_your_bitcoin_classic_pool_on/
And stop spreading lies about non-updated nodes "not validating." They validate everything according to the consensus rules. To reiterate Satoshi (emphasis mine):
Quote
The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
Bitcoin is clearly not for you, Franky, since you apparently believe that miners mining the longest valid chain = "bypassing the consensus mechanism." It's painfully obvious that you have some deep misunderstandings of the protocol. Or perhaps you really do intend to deceive people.