Quote from: franky1 on October 27, 2018, 10:34:57 AM

the code
the code
the code

This is the problem with your "argument" (in the loosest possible sense of the word). You act like there is only one codebase. If there was only one codebase and no one was able to make another one, in that scenario you might actually have a point, because that would indeed mean users don't have control. They'd have no choice to run what that one dev team have created. That would be a horrible outcome for Bitcoin and I would fight that outcome to my dying breath. But that's not what we have. Any user, or group of users, can start their own codebase because the code is open source and Bitcoin is totally permissionless. Everyone is free to create a client that enforces any rules they like. If someone else doesn't like what those people are making, too bad. You can't stop people from coding what they want. None of your mental flailings change this simple fact.

Questions
1. If you didn't have choice as a user, how are you running a client that isn't made by Core right now?
2. If you think all developers have to agree, how are you going to prevent a pool from launching a competing chain like ViaBTC did?

Answers
1. Users clearly do have a choice and your position is untenable. You are running a client that wasn't made by Core. Any user can run any code they want. It is a level playing field.
2. There's no way to achieve that and your idea is totally unworkable. Bitcoin is not a democracy. It never will be. It's better than democracy. It's freedom.

You've convinced yourself that Core are in control so you just make up an endless pile of lies to justify that insane belief. You are demonstrably wrong. There have been numerous codebases and I've supported the developers of those codebases when others in the community have attacked them. Users are free to choose these other clients. First we had XT (which came about as a result of developers not being able to agree, so you saying that they have to agree is clearly moronic and can't be achieved in the real world where people are allowed to disagree). I supported XT. I defended the developers who made it when others accused them of a "hostile takeover attempt" (which to me sounds equally as idiotic as your "mandatory consensus bypass" phrase). We had the /btc1 branch. Some forum users claimed they shouldn't be allowed to do what they were doing and that they were "stealing Core's property", which I emphatically fought against because it's total bullshit. We still have BU. I still support the developers of that codebase even though I think Emergent Consensus isn't a good idea in practice. They are free to make that code. Users are free to run that code.

To anyone reading this post:

If you aren't a fan of SegWit or Lightning, there are alternatives. It's entirely your choice. You have the option of running BU instead. The latest version for the BTC chain is 1.0.3.0 and you can find it here (but ensure you select the BTC version).

Happy now, franky1?

I will continue to defend the right of ANY developer, not just Core, to make what they want to make. To paraphrase a quote commonly misattributed to Voltaire:

"I may not agree with what you say code but I will defend to the death your right to say code it."

You just attack the developers of any code you disagree with because you don't have a more convincing argument. Which is why users are still choosing to run Core's code. They clearly presented the winning case. Users agree with it. If another dev or group of devs ever come up with something better, consensus may change. But for now, no one is anywhere near creating something better. You keep saying what's supposedly wrong with Core, but not only is every idea you've ever suggested about a billion times worse or totally impossible to achieve, but you've also shown no intent to actually make a client of your own to prove how "good" your ideas would be. Put up or shut up. This is me once again supporting you in making your own code. Even if I disagree with your code because your ideas are abysmal, I'll support your right to make it. But you won't do it. Because you just want to tell other people what to make (or more crucially, what not to make) instead.