Quote from: franky1 on December 29, 2016, 05:25:01 AM

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 28, 2016, 05:40:35 AM

by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

there i even made it red..
strange thing is that other clients are not just going to reject core positive blocks purely because they are core positive.
other clients are just not going to want segwit by not flagging desire.

You can certainly place the emphasis on that part, but you're leaving out the part I'd emphasise, which is

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 28, 2016, 05:40:35 AM

the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

He isn't saying that Core will unilaterally take the decision to start orphaning blocks. He's saying that the network participants, miners and nodes, have the power, if they really wanted, to force activation of SegWit by orphaning blocks. But it's also equally possible the network participants won't elect to do that. The option is there. That's all he's saying. The users make the decision, not Core.

But in fairness, I suppose if anyone proposed the same tactic in an attempt to active a hard fork, it's pretty clear that the people in the other camp would overreact in equal fashion.

Quote from: franky1 on December 29, 2016, 05:25:01 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on December 28, 2016, 10:50:12 PM

This should be the 101 stuff. The absolute basics. Bitcoin has no central authority. There's no one person who can abuse the system. It doesn't rely on a "trusted" third party to make it work. As such, there can be no takeovers. There is only the code run by those securing the network. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Why does everything have to be some nefarious conspiracy on both sides? I swear people need to find something better to do with their time. Everyone's losing the fucking plot.

lol..
yet you "trust" gmaxwell and sipa.. and think core deserve to dominate, thus giving core the power to do what they like.
we are no longer in the days of true diversity. even gmaxwell knows this. and this is why he calls anything not core an altcoin because he wants his codebase to be "the bitcoin". and be at the CORE of what bitcoin becomes. hence why they chose the name in 2013. they want to be the engine that drives bitcoin. maxwell has been very public about that

It's possible I've gone a bit "zen philosophy" over the matter of consensus. I simply trust the network as a whole and will happily let the cards fall where they may. Everyone places far too much emphasis on individuals and personalities and what their supposed motives are, which is where the majority of largely pointless and irrelevant arguments stem from. I do still question the issue of centralised development and wish the community would adopt a more mature attitude towards competition from other developers. Even the fact that we seemingly have to refer to them as "alternative developers" irks me somewhat and strikes me as a failure to set the narrative correctly from the offset, which means almost everyone sees it the wrong way as a result. It somehow became an "us and them" mentality, which isn't conducive to healthy discussion. And you'll see me continue to call out the absurdity of it every time I notice someone calling an alternative client an altcoin. That's just bullshit. I point blank won't abide users proclaiming that Core possess any kind of ownership over the project as a whole. They have their repo and that's the extent of it.

There will always be concerns and things that I believe could be done better, but let's be honest, none of these things are a showstopper. There's nothing catastrophically imminent that's going to bring down the network. Just a load of forum drama that makes it look that way.