Quote from: franky1 on November 27, 2018, 05:31:08 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on November 27, 2018, 05:17:51 PM

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.

here you go. forgetting your own "compatibility" flip flops

nodes that are "compatible" did not get to opt-out. they were sheepishly treated as accepting without option

Let's imagine for a moment that I accept your definition that Non-SegWit nodes are not full nodes. If that's the case, why does it even matter what the opinion of non-SegWit users are? You can't rationally argue that you're not a full node but you should still have a say in what consensus is. That makes no sense. Would you like me to formally declare that you don't matter and leave that as the final argument? Because I can do that if you want. But it betrays the reality that you still have a voice in the rules that govern the network. As I've stated before, if enough users ran the client you use, consensus would change. If the software you run wasn't a full node, how could it possibly achieve that feat?

Quote from: franky1 on November 27, 2018, 05:31:08 PM

july 2017: 20% nonsegwit, 45% compatible, 35 segwit ready.
august1st 2017: get the 20% nonsegwit off the network and then not be concerned about the 45% compatible
mid august: get the corecode to count the votes of segwit1x flag who want only segwit1x on the network (35/35=100%)
november 2017: now the network only has segwit1x

remember 45% "compatible" were not voting. they were sheeped as abstainers

That's certainly one interpretation of the timeline. Here's another:

Feb 25th 2017: Shaolinfry, a Litecoin developer, posts the topic Moving towards user activated soft fork activation. A small, but vocal, number of users like the idea.

March 31st 2017: I compare UASF to a 'cold war' scenario, giving an indication that I wasn't partial to the idea.

April 14th 2017: Gregory Maxwell goes on record as stating he does not support UASF.

June 14th 2017: Bitmain announce their "contingency plan" of launching an altcoin with a 72 hour premine. Almost everyone thinks it's hilarious and/or terrible. It is dubbed "bitmaincoin" and widely ridiculed.

July 16th 2017: The Bitcoin cash fork is fomally announced by ViaBTC in response to something a Litecoin developer said on a forum.

July 19th 2017: BIP91, A "compatible" softfork proposal created by a non-Core developer, began to be signalled by miners.

July 21st 2017: Technically, BIP91 signalling wasn't due to commence until the 21st July. Proof again that no one is in control. It also marks the date I described UASF as a "User Anticipated Spectacular Falter" due to a total lack of support from nodes.

August 1st 2017: BCH forked away as they announced they would in July. No one forced them. They freely chose to do it. UASF was a total non-event. I laughed.

August 8th 2017: BIP91 was locked in by 90+% of the hashpower on the BTC network. Some UASF supporters were extremely upset by this, as they felt their consensus had been bypassed, even though that's not actually a thing. They thought their vision for Bitcoin was best and didn't care that they didn't have adequate support for their ideas. Remind you of anyone? The only difference is, many of the hardcore UASF supporters had the decency to move on with their lives instead of whining about it like a spoiled child for the next year or more.

Mid-August 2017: BTC1/Segwit2x (which is unrelated to BCH and I don't see why you always conflate them unless it's to deliberately mislead users who weren't around at the time and wouldn't know any better) continued to raise the possibility of a hardfork and chose not to implement replay protection, so some users took the decision to run code that would disconnect them from the network. BTC1/SegWit2x failed to launch anyway, so it didn't even matter in the end.

August 23rd 2017: Segregated Witness is activated.

August 24th to November 2017: Franky1 is still trying to figure out what's going on. Apparently, he never does.

November 2017 to present day: Franky1 eventually arrives at the conclusion that Core is somehow at fault for everything written above, even though anyone rational can see that's not correct and they really had very little involvement in any of it. Franky1 perceives the above events as a dastardly conspiracy by a tyrannical group of developers who rule with a vice-like grip on power. No one else appears to see it that way and naturally assume that Franky1 may have been dropped on his head a few too many times as an infant.