Quote from: franky1 on November 27, 2018, 03:36:04 PM

the funny thing is core supporters actually shouted that cash didnt trigger until hours later.
(core only accepted segwit flagged blocks at 13:23)
(cash only accepted cash blocks at 18:12)

The funny thing is, it takes two sides to have a disagreement and this statement was issued before SegWit was activated:

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67

Why pretend it's all the fault of only one side? They clearly had plans to leave the BTC network and make another one that suited their stance on scaling.

Quote from: franky1 on November 27, 2018, 02:03:55 PM

i am against throwing opposers off the network so minorities get a faked consensus. but the devs advocate it (UASF)

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 28, 2016, 05:40:35 AM

If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% .. then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

i am against the idea of mandatory forks.

i am against single brands of software deciding whole network decisions,

Is that really what you've been blathering on about for all this time? Seriously? A dev pointed out something that users and miners are free to do if they wanted to, so because of that, you think developers are somehow "in control"? Congratulations on proving once again you don't understand consensus.

Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described? Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork. Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run. That's consensus in action. People run what they want and the software automatically matches them up with other people who want the same thing. And it goes both ways. Some people want to run code that doesn't conform to what users on this network want. Why should they not have that choice? Why do you think you can force everyone to reach an agreement when they clearly don't want to? There is no compromise that everyone would have accepted. We had years of infighting to demonstrate that fact. Why can't you let it go? However it might have happened, it's done. You can't go back and change it, nor can you stop it from happening again. And I'll explain why:

A "single brand of software" doesn't decide consensus, users and miners do. They do that with every single block. You can be "against" whatever you like, even if that means you're against reality itself and reveal yourself to be totally ignorant and deluded in the process. Bitcoin doesn't work they way you'd like it to. Chances are, it never will. You can't prevent users and miners from running the code they are freely choosing to run. You can't prevent hardforks, softforks, UASFs, whatever. You can't prevent "throwing opposors off the network". I don't care how much you hate it or how wrong you believe it to be. It's not your call. It's all just a whole bunch of different people running software. No one can control that. If what you want falls by the wayside, that's just too bad. C'est la vie. Don't expect any sympathy just because other people don't want what you want. None of us are here to go out of our way to appease you. Perhaps it's time you accepted that?

Also, please take just a brief a moment to consider that it might not be the best idea telling people to "research consensus" just because you've come up with your own unique and highly distorted interpretation of what it means. If you're the only one who takes exception to what gmaxwell said, then it stands to reason you're the one who is out of step with everyone else here. In which case, perhaps you might want to go back to learning it all from scratch because you're the one who doesn't understand it.

I now fully expect you to start talking about social dramas and poking bears (you're not a bear by the way, you seem more like a weasel or rodent) and do some whining about insults. All the usual Franky1 deflections to avoid admitting you don't understand the first thing about permissionless freedom and consensus. Again, it's just people running code. In the grand scheme of things, none of what is said here changes anything. The market decides, not me or you.