Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2019, 02:01:49 PM

code didnt write itself. so users are only using code that devs create. thus users have limited decisions.

The client you're running didn't write itself either. Stop pretending there is only one dev team. Granted, there aren't many popular dev teams, but since you clearly want to falsely portray the situation as some sort of dictatorship, then I can see why you wouldn't freely admit that other clients are right there for the choosing and it's just that most people don't approve of their ideas. Because if you admitted that, then your "argument" would be decimated.

Maybe the other dev teams just need to raise their game a little? Then more users might actually run their code. That's up to them, though. No one is going to agree with hamstringing one dev team to allow others to play catch-up, which, as I recall, was an idea you're rather fond of. We have a level playing field. Proposing to make it unlevel in order to assist weaker participants is not how we do things here. It's survival of the fittest. Weak ideas shouldn't survive, so they don't. Try having better ideas and more convincing arguments in future if you want people to create and run code supporting those ideas.

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2019, 02:01:49 PM

secondly devs implemented code in a way to throw opposers off the network. again this isnt some magic or some AI. its code wrote by devs

might be worth you talking to some devs and actually realise the devs you FAIL to defend are happy to admit their actions. which is where you are failing most.
all you seem to want to do is defend and kiss a devs ass, but you fail to realise that what you defending doesnt ned defending because devs are happy to admit their roadmap and plan

I'm not denying one dev team (again, there are multiple teams) wrote code that disconnected incompatible clients from the network. Clearly they did. There were media articles about it. The part I deny is that it's somehow morally wrong for them to do that. I will defend their actions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did. I even stated at the time I had no complaints about it. Everything I said then, I will stand by now:

Quote from: Me, what feels like a long time ago on August 10, 2017, 05:27:38 PM

No complaints here. Makes rational sense and adds some initial replay protection in the process. People in the crypto community are seemingly quick on the draw to label everything an "attack" when it really isn't. Just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on. If there has to be a split, it should at least be done as cleanly as possible. Everything about this decision is perfectly reasonable.

If you run code that goes against the will of other users, they can run code to disconnect you from their network. People can run whatever code they like. You're still in denial about the fact that users made their choice and the only thing you can do about it is run the client you want to run (and whine incessantly for the rest of forever, apparently). As I said at the time, "just chalk it up to a difference of opinion and move on".

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2019, 02:01:49 PM

but hey. its obvious you dont want diversity, you dont want decentralisation. you prefer the single central team of 'distribution' and you definetly love the idea of locking funds up into more central custodians

I want permissionless freedom and I already have it. More diversity would be nice, but not at the expense of permissionless freedom. You want to change the glorious paradise we currently enjoy into some sort of "let's have a vote and everyone has to agree before anyone can code anything" nonsense and you can literally climb up your own backside because Bitcoin will never work like that. Ever. People code what they want. Users run what they want. That is decentralisation. No one is in a position of authority to stop someone from doing what they want. Just know that if other people don't like what you're doing, you might end up doing it by yourself, because no one is forced to follow along. You can go your own way by yourself if you want. If others agree, they can follow you. Everyone has a choice. That's the best part about Bitcoin. That's what I'm preserving. Unity is not always the best solution. Trying to stick together whilst simultaneously trying to move in opposite directions is not possible. It's like arguing that human beings somehow function better when they suffer from multiple personality disorder.

Your ideas, no matter how good you might think they are, would absolutely weaken both decentralisation and permissionless freedom. If you ever managed to implement your ridiculous ideas in Bitcoin, developers would simply leave this network and continue developing on another network where they'd be straight back to being perfectly free to code what they want. And that's the network which would thrive. You keep talking about "stagnating development", but that's exactly what would happen if we had to have some stupid vote about every future change. I mean, just look at Brexit. How much simpler would it be if those who want it and those who don't want it simply ended up on different networks and each went their own separate way? But instead, it's a total impasse. No one can agree on anything. Nothing is moving forward. Everyone is sick of it. That's what Bitcoin would look like if we did things your way.

And... saving the best for last:

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2019, 02:01:49 PM

devs did make the decisions.

Yes, some devs made a decision. And then some users and some miners agreed with it. So it happened.

It wouldn't have happened if some devs made a decision and then no one agreed with it.

You have no argument to counter this. You will never have an argument to counter this.

People have to agree for a change in Bitcoin to occur (and if people can't agree, a fork tends to sort it out). If people agree, change happens. You can't refute that. No one can. Large numbers of people have to run the code in order for that code to have any effect. That's how it works. If you don't like how it works, too bad. The numbers aren't on your side. If we ever find ourselves in a situation where the numbers are on your side (and pigs fly), then you can implement whatever dumb crap you like. Until then, keep screaming "social drama", "research", "bypass", "mandate", "meander", etc in a bunch of threads where it isn't even on-topic. It's pretty much all you're good for. Derailing threads with mind-numbingly idiotic catchphrases and then trying to blame others when they point out the myriad reasons why you're demonstrably wrong. Maybe consider a change in tactics? It's clearly not having the desired effect.