Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 16, 2018, 05:29:18 AM

Quote from: franky1 on July 15, 2018, 10:40:45 AM

at current coding. core and cash accepts anything below consensus.h limit.. and then core freely allows the mining pool to make the blocks bigger than policy which will still be acceptable to core as long as the new blocksize stays under consensus (meaning to non-mining nodes) policy is meaningless to core users as its something pools decide solely by themselves

Maybe I misunderstood but how would it be "meaningless" if it is enforced to stay under a limit even if pools can decide but only if up to that limit?

meaningless to non-mining nodes
EG imagine a law that says its illegal accept 2000 banana and another law that says its illegal to GROW more than 1000 bananas.

growers(miners) follow the do not grow more then 1000 law AND if anyone passed them 2000 banana batch. they would rject that too..
howevr CUSTOMERS(non-miners/nongrowers) do not grow banana's so they dont need to worry about the 1000 banana growth rule. they only follow the 2000 acceptance rule

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 16, 2018, 05:29:18 AM

Quote from: franky1 on July 15, 2018, 10:40:45 AM

however take bitcoin unlimiteds proposal a few years back (core rejected it) where by the policy.h becomes somthing non-mining nodes vote on by having s a value in their node identity and then mining pools only move forward making bigger blocks if a high percentage of nodes wave a flag to say its ok to do so.. they said it was a bad voting mechanism

kind of funny that devs that said no to it.. becasue it was them same devs that actually then went on to beg users to put "nosegwitx2" or "yesUASF" in their identifier to see how many people wanted the core roadmap. they even promoted people put it into thier twitter usernames and other non-code social stuff such as 'buy a UASF hat and take a picture on social media and get people to share it'.. (facepalm)

Yes it is very bad because it would be open to Sybil attacks. It would be easy for some group of people to set up and run nodes in Alibaba cloud service.

you do realise the events of august.
you do realise that the pools that waved the versionbit to say yes to segwit were not even running nodes that were actually fully segwit ready.
even now today BTCC the biggest suporting pool for segwit still is not using segwit addresss for their coinbase rewards
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/000000000000000000251e0ea67c4fa7998df7e024d35dbadb25f943cbda2beb
13TEThZNnKPk34HYAuo1QqYMwDdjF3qeHx
try looking for BTCC using a bc1q address
then go look at bob lee and samson mow with their silly UASF hats and endless promotion since end of 2015 that "segwit is great"... its funny. that they are now too scared to even use segwit for thier own pool rewards.

nearly a year later and they stil havnt vetted their own code to have a strong enough belief its safe to use segwit themselves. but were happy to simply change the versionbits in their block sybil ID and to wear silly hats on social media

all they had to do is use whatever client(yep even old client) and just FLAG a version number.. without actually having the code in place. oh and wear the hat..

this is why the whole mandatory bilateral split was so controversial. core only had ~35% vote from november 2016-spring 2017.
so at that point core should have backed off and went back to the drawing board to find a alternative compromis the community using consensus would accept..
but instead then it was just a flagging event or threat to be pushed off th network. and done th 3card trick
that there is what even you should realise it waa a sybil attack performed to get segwit activated.

also check the block number of august first. you will see core nodes shiftd first. and it was the non core nodes that didnt move off to an altcoin until HOURS later

Quote from: Wind_FURY on July 16, 2018, 05:29:18 AM

Quote from: franky1 on July 15, 2018, 10:40:45 AM

devs love their social drama campaigns but try to avoid code voting (avoided consensus upgrade and done the 3shell trick of a MANDATORY bilateral split) which they thought was OK because all the social media and social identifiers said it was ok (facepalm)

The Core developers should not be pressured by fraudsters like Roger Ver, Craig Wright, or the mining cartels. Do you agree or disagree?

the core developers should not pressure the community by calling anyone else the opposition/attackers/invaders/REKTers.. core should realise that its a decentralised network and if core dont get thier way using consensus, then they should have AVOIDED sybil and mandatory crap.. and instead gone back to the drawing board and they actually use thier ears to listen to the community wherby an agreement that meets the communities desires is met.

or.. if you wish to stick to the mindset that btc is core.. then stop cryng when people call it bitcoin core.
if you want the network to be core controlled then actually man up and be happy to call it bitcoin core.

you cant keep pretending its decentralised whel also campaigning anything not core should be treated as invaders..
stop flip flopping.. have a cup of coffee.. sit back and spend some time truly thinking about what you care most about
bitcoin decentralisation and consensus of multiple teams on one network. all on a level playing field of no control
or
bitcoin core centralisation with user distribution of core nodes that use mandatory upgrades

you cant have it both ways

P.S
what your stil not realising.. is.. if you stop reading reddit.. you will realise that vr, wright are not code developers. so while you point fingers at SOCIAL drama you avoiding what actually occured at code level.

whats next. wil you blame oj simpson(losely linked to th kardashian social drama)
yes ver and craig are drama queens.. but your just bleting lik a shep at faces of distraction. all whil bitcoin CODE is bing changed without consensus and into a direction that the dvs are litrally shouting "bitcoins blockchain is dead, it cant scale. so instead lock your funds into LN fortknox, and play around with unaudited/unconfirmed tranactions with hub bank managrs authorisating every pyment you want to make

LN is not a freedom of PUSH payments
LN is not a sole custody system
LN is not a guaranteed payment system