Quote from: franky1 on November 23, 2018, 06:51:54 PM

here we go again you poke, i bite.
shame you are missing the point of decentralisation

Shame you are missing the point of permissionless.

And again, you would only make Bitcoin more centralised if the community had to approve code before anyone could write it. Don't dodge the argument by telling me I'm missing the point when you're deliberately evading the point. You can't insist on a handicap for one dev team and then claim you want a level playing field. It's already level, because anyone can code what they want. Clearly what you want is an un-level playing field where the dev team you don't like have restrictions on what they can do, but everyone else is free to do whatever. In the past, others have demanded the same un-level playing field, except stacked against alternative clients. They argued (wrongly) that the developers of alternative clients needed permission from the community to publish the code they did. I defended the alternative clients.

How can I be the one missing the point of decentralisation when my argument defends the right of everyone to code what they want? That means we get multiple clients. You're the one arguing that developers need to have permission from the community to code stuff and alternative clients would simply not get that permission. That means we would only get ONE client (and it wouldn't be the one you want). You should be agreeing with me on this, not fighting me.

Quote from: franky1 on November 23, 2018, 06:51:54 PM

do you ever wonder why i just publicly give out idea's and let people decide yay or nah. rather than keep idea's in secret and make code and then demand adoption. again before trying to say im demanding anything. show me a line of code i made that had a mandatory deadline that would take people off the network if not adopted.
.. you wont. there is no need for your finger pointing that im an authoritarian demanding rule changes. because there is no demanding rule changes made by me

You're demanding a change in the way developers act. You don't have any code to show because it isn't possible for code to achieve what you're demanding.

Quote from: franky1 on November 23, 2018, 06:51:54 PM

emphasis.. MANDATE without community ability to veto

You're using your veto right now by running a non-Core client. If enough people did that, consensus would change. The problem you appear to be having is that most people on the network have no desire to use their veto. They don't want consensus to change.

Cue Franky1 deflecting from all of these points instead of countering them in 3... 2...