Quote from: franky1 on October 26, 2018, 10:33:41 AM

my reply would be
separate teams have separate software that all have their own proposals platform (suggestion box)
then the community(not one team) then poke at the suggestions and improve on them until all teams can agree on one master proposal

Literally fallen at the first hurdle. Devs don't have to agree. Those securing the network do. Stop telling people to "learn consensus" when you haven't got the slightest clue about it yourself. I'm sure you would love it if there was another team who would then be in a position to veto all the ideas you personally disagree with, but Bitcoin doesn't work like that and never will.

As for the rest of your post, you are proposing something that sounds remarkably like the introduction of political parties and a public vote on their manifestos. Bitcoin is not a democracy and we're not staging your silly little "elections". All it takes is for the introduction of some campaign contributions and corporate lobbying and suddenly the whole thing is just as corrupt and controlled as the rest of the world is.

Even by your dismally low standards, that's a truly horrific idea. If that's the system you want, go make it and see if anyone likes it. I, for one, categorically do not. Bitcoin under your style of "governance" would be an unmitigated disaster.

Quote from: franky1 on October 26, 2018, 09:25:50 AM

Quote from: DooMAD on October 25, 2018, 07:20:39 PM

psst hint: It was miners. Core are a dev team, so how could Core instigate something if they definitely couldn't make a block because they aren't even mining? (logic prevails over anything franky1 has ever posted in his life)

lol
do you even read code. read bips

the august 1st event. was not about block format.
the event was about a FLAG. yea bitcoin mining pools could have been running bitcoin v0.10 and making legacy blocks on august 1st.(your failure to understand)

but they were threatened with the mandatory consensus bypass that unless they just simply change a version number (not change block format that requires segwit code).. simply change a version number. they would get their blocks rejected

yep CODE WRITTEN BY DEVS WOULD KILL OFF BLOCKS

I'm not the one with the reading problem. If a dev coded something tomorrow that threw any pool off the network if they produced a block larger than 10 kilobytes, that code doesn't mean anything unless there are nodes who are enforcing that code. Even if there was a BIP for it. Even if there was a flag day announced. Even if all the Core devs agreed and made that the next official Core release. Nothing actually happens unless network participants are using that software.

It always comes down to that one simple question which you are totally unable to reconcile with all your crazy ideas about developers enforcing changes: How are developers forcing people to run this code? What you're suggesting is that every single person securing this network right now is a gullible fool who has been deceived by a cabal of sinister gatekeepers. How likely is that really? What are the odds of that being true? Apparently we're on a network where no one agrees with the rules that are currently being enforced, but everyone keeps enforcing them anyway? That's insanity. Seek help.

If the community run the code which causes these effects you so passionately despise, that still means consensus was reached and those are the rules that will be enforced by the network. You are the one who doesn't understand consensus because you are pretty much the only lunatic on this entire forum who thinks consensus means the developers are in charge. It's demonstrably wrong. Your little crusade is fundamentally misguided.

And in the end, not that many people were actually running the UASF code anyway. And even if larger numbers of users had been running it, UASF was not the result of any work done in a Core code repository and I challenge you to prove otherwise. UASF was an alternative client, much like the one you're running. You might have noticed that some of the most vociferous and militant supporters of User Activated Stumbling Flounder went a little quiet after SegWit got activated by the miners instead of the users. They didn't get exactly what they wanted either. Most of them couldn't even square the hypocrisy of what they were arguing for.

Every single argument I used against the UASF fanboys works against your bullshit arguments too, so perhaps you have more in common with them than you're willing to admit. Consensus didn't agree with them, just like it doesn't agree with you. But what the network as a whole does agree in is that we move forward as a chain that has absolutely no significant interest in Emergent Consensus and isn't going to turn into some sort of crooked "democracy", so cry about it all you want. Your beliefs are terrible and Bitcoin would be far worse if it worked the way you wanted it to.