Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 16, 2017, 05:12:24 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 16, 2017, 04:33:50 AM

Lol. No all you did you shown your inability to continue in any reasonable way.
You really have a hard time letting go, huh?
So now you are just going to resort to brief statements and word games?

Boring. Do everyone a favor and address my replies to your Part 1 and Part 2
"Kill Switch" comments to me. I wish to see how you are going to tap dance
and shuck and jive in those responses too. Each time you change the subject,
my spine gets a little tingle of pleasure.

Oh, I can feel it already.

It doesn't matter what you think, it's all in the evidence.
Evidence have proven ASICBoost was never an issue, it never would have worked on SegWit, Ext Block was base on SegWit so ASICBoost never would have worked on that either. The key is in the 'witness root hash', it's in both SegWit and Ext Block right at the start.
You're just having a hard time accepting that.
That's why you still think you can troll your way back.
As long as you continue to ignore the evidence that has been there the whole time, even if you continue to troll 10 more pages, you will still be as clueless about ASICBoost as you were on page one.
You thought you were a good troll so I had a little fun with you, while I was pointing out the fact that ASICBoost never would have worked. ASICBoost is just a red herring Blockstream used to distract people.
How long you are going to take to accept that, depends on the size of your ego.

I could accept that as a possibility if you can explain the following:

You are missing my major point as usual, either intentionally or not.
If you read what I wrote prior and weren't so superficial and stuck in your box,
then you would understand my argument is based on a simple premise:

My simple premise all along:
"If Antpool/Bitmain currently states (the Bitmain public statement) that they do
not think patching ASICboost is appropriate and think it should be opened to all
miners to use now and into the future, and patching it will "hurt their patent
holders", why did they originally agree to and in good faith sign the HK agreement
which would have done what they currently do not want?"

You have never addressed this simple issue. There are many possible answers to
this question. Some are reasonable and possible and some are conspiracy. I have
attempted to understand why throughout this thread, with one possibility that the
miners did not do their due diligence before agreeing. You disagree and think they
did so and still went forward. Yet I do not recall you ever addressing this or providing
your theory as to this aspect. You keep going around in circles without directly
providing a possible puzzle piece to my simple premise.

So now, prove me wrong and explain a rational reason why they were for SegWit
Softfork originally, when you admit it would hurt their ASICboost use? Is your
argument that AntPool/Bitmain was willing to gimp or outright brick their chips
and any future possibility of use, in exchange for the 2MB hardfork bump? Is that
you belief? Was Antpool/Bitmain going to "take one for the team"? Is that your
explanation? Please elaborate on this aspect.

I never said you were entirely wrong throughout this thread, I only stated that
your current explanation and outline never addresses the important issues, one
being my simple premise. Your disagreement with me centers around you never
addressing this aspect.

You have not explained your reasoning or addressed my simple premise. Please
explain to me your nonconspiratorial reasoning as to this specific issue.