Quote from: franky1 on May 09, 2018, 04:49:25 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 08, 2018, 06:57:48 AM

But Adam never said he is Satoshi Nakamoto. What I know he did is wanting to get some credit for inventing where Bitcoin's Proof of Work is based on. Hashcash.

Adam Back made Hashcash and he wants to get credit for making Bitcoin possible.

craig wright.. adams mirror.. kardashian families khloe to kardashians kyle... is saying the same thing. that craig wright helped bring bitcoin possible

they are all part of the same family..
again check out who funded both blockstram(core) and bloq(cash)
dcg.co/portfolio/#b

its all a big drama event to get everyone to love the kardashian family(dcg portfolio group) so that its all centralised.
craig wright never wrote a line of code in 2008-2010 for satoshis invention.. neither did adam back
theymos is vers mirror
.org is .com mirror
bloq is blockstream mirror
btcc is antpool mirror
wu is samson mow mirror

but if you just stop defending one or the other teams and stop thinking the only choice is team A or team B and just say neither.. you begin to se where the problems began about centralisation (2013)

in 2013
hearne and gavin "prtended" to run away from core to make it apear that there was still a free choice of core/xt/classic all happily using the same network protocol and using consensus of a single network to show a fake resemblance of free choice to upgrade to cores roadmap or another roadmap

the agenda was to REKT out xt/classic using social drama so core can win centralisation. (the big picture even gavin and hearn were in it to achieve the core roadmap)

take a look at hearne. he went to R3 to work on hyperledger(bankers project).
take a look at gavin he went to bloq to work on hyperledger
take a look at blockstream who went to work on hyper ledger

then you will see why segwit is so important and why the segwit address identifier and LN is crucial to those paid devs. its to become the bankers network for hyperledger.
they dont want bitcoin core network to be a payment network. they want LN (bankers network of bank branches(hubs) to be the payment network)

That is all a bunch of subjective bullshit from you. But you are free to think of it that way. Thank God Almighty that almost none would think of it the same as you.

Quote from: franky1 on May 09, 2018, 04:59:26 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 08, 2018, 06:57:48 AM

It is decentralized you can run your own software impelentation if you want, https://coin.dance/nodes

it is DISTRIBUTED.. there is a difference
the other nodes have to fully comply to CORES policies and rules, or get ban-hammered out of the network
this is why there have been no orphans(caused by consensus competition) on cores network since last summer
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks
because anyone that tries to send a block that differs gets rejected in 2 seconds and thrown out the network
the only time there is any discrepency is due to block timing of what block a pool seen first to build apon. (not due to consensus rule competition)

yes you can call a node by a different name. writ it in a different language but if you intend to make the codebase propose a differnt rule set and want to form a consensus that opposes core.. you will see the REKT campaign begin.

the only way to desire to change the rules or add a feature to cores network is first via their moderatd IRC
then their moderated mailing list
then their moderated BIP list

core hates consensus. thats why any node wanting consensus gets handed a bilateral split or REKT unless the non cor roadmap node does its own unilateral fork. purely to keepcores roadmap ontrack as the sole/only route forward

This of it however you want. But Core does not centralize development. They only happen to be the best group of developers with great ideas like Segwit and we cannot blame the community if they run their software.

Quote from: franky1 on May 10, 2018, 03:21:22 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on May 09, 2018, 08:20:35 PM

Still backwards. It's not the Core dev team enforcing that process. It's the users who enforce it by running the code. The fact that most of the nodes are running a Core client strongly indicates users like the way you can't change the rules without going through the moderated IRC/mailing list/BIP process. If a majority of network participants didn't like it working that way, it wouldn't.

core had 35% opposition had 65%
yet the 35% still think that core is the prime network

it was a bilateral split that insured the 65% became invisible so that although there were less pools and nodes to count.. the pools making blocks that core seen as visibile instantly became 100%

try reading bip9 bip 148 do some research on bilateral split. and you will see that real true fair consensus was not used. but vote rigging was

you have not really checked out how things have changed since 2013 have you.

did yu know that due to FIBRE the only blocks being pushed out of the ring of mining pools is blocks that strictly follow cores rules. all other blocks get rejected in under 2 seconds. if a pool attempted to make blocks that differ. and keep doing it. they get banned from the network until they comply, thus Fibre forces the pools to follow the rules of core or nver get a block to be part of the chain and thus they are mining without ever getting a reward that matures to be spendable on the chain.

other developers who make nodes. if they did nake their own github and their own bip list and promote a upgrade that differs from cores roadmap. first needs to follow cores rules to just be allowed and seen by the networ and can only flag their desire. but has to flag using a bip9 process that core have to acknowledge. then it has to get enough nodes and enough pools to also run that same codebase to out power core..

well guess what. bitcoin ABC(cash) got 65% core got 35% and core simply done a bilateral split on the whole process.. and people still think core is "the network". so by core removing the 65% opposition. it automatically got cores BIP9 to see the remaining nodes co-operating and being seen by other core nodes equalled over 95% although there was in reality far more nodes/opposing pools that were simply invisible to bip9

core having 35% (letss say 7 pools out of 20(cant be arsed to count the pools with less than 1% block mining network hash power))
now imagine samson mow (UASF/blockstream) and bloq deciding to make a second choice to drama the sheep into another field. and made it so pools that didnt flag for segwit moved over too

Quote

The UASF (BIP 148) approach to achieving a chain where 100% of blocks signal support for Segwit is relatively simple.

On August 1st if Segwit itself is not already at the status of locked-in or activated, any node running the BIP 148 code will begin orphaning blocks that do not signal for Segwit using bit 1.

Quote

if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
   (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
   (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && // Segwit is not locked in
   !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) ) // and is not active.
{
   bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
   bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
   if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
   return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
   }
}

thus on that day if pools were not scared and continued to refuse to join the 7 core loyalist pools they would get their blocks rejected.

so when the rejects occured and fibre simply ban hammered the pools off the core network of those not UASFing.. all that was left mining the core network were segwit supporting pools. and on that day far less than 20 pools were mining (for example 7 pools out of 7 pools=100%)
..all the core support nodes got to see was blocks made by segwit supporting pools. thus although the pool count dropped, the percentage support jumped to 100% hense why segwit got locked in and activated only a few weeks after august..
it is real funny people think after months of 35% community consensus. it jumped to 100% in a couple weeks. and people still think that it meant evryone loved it.. no the majoirty were just made invisible so that only one fanclub could be seen

yes core done a rigged election
the users had no consensus election. all the users seen was 35%-100% jump.
its really worth you actually reading some code and looking at some stats. ahd how things like bips, and fibre work. it will completely shock you how things have changed since 2013

Sorry franky1, but you are the only one who believes that. Roger Ver has lost. No one from the Bitcoin community is willing to follow him except a few people with their own agendas.

Plus a forecast. As a desperate move, Roger Ver will start arguing for the BTC ticker as rightfully for Bitcoin Cash because "Satoshi". Then hilarity ensues once again. Hahaha.