Quote from: franky1 on November 27, 2018, 10:36:03 PM

and i do laugh that you still think core should control the network without community "permission"
seems you forget consensus and again flip flop in and out of it

make up your mind. EG
"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."

^ so greg does need users and miners "permission" - "depending on what people run"

but yea i expect a fip flop about how greg can push his code through because he doesnt need communities "permission"
then later a post that greg has to abide by what the community "permit"

but you forget that if greg is using a inflight upgrade that makes 45% of nodes not need to opt-in or out. for something to activate or not. then greg adds code for his 35% friends to kill off the 20% that vote out.
then only counts his 35% friends.

thats not consensus.
the code to allow th backdoor activate or F**k off should not be used again. and should be stripped out.
but now we the community have no control because core would just say "we dont need your permission"
and dilute the community down to any opposers of core.

if you cant see that core are now a central power house. or your going to flip flip to deny they are central.. (the core) your missing the whole point of decentralisation and your missing why bitcoin was created to solve the byzantine generals issue without having to have a CORE general

(dont reply with a flip or a flop about saying does or doesnt need permission until you have convinced youself which. and then decide to stick to that narrative..
you have for months flip flopped in and out of needing or not needing. so try not to state other people are wrong unless you are ready to stick to one narrative)
)

There is no flip flop, you simply don't understand what I'm saying. Your grasp of the English language is atrocious. Allow me to break it down for you in a way you might possibly comprehend (fingers crossed, but I won't hold my breath). Here's the quote again:

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.

Greg is pointing out that it is those securing the network who ultimately decide if/when a fork is activated, not developers. Oddly enough, I agree with this statement, because it's true. It is users and miners who decide consensus. There is no permanent rule in the code saying that it always has to be 95% support to activate a change. To demonstrate that this statement is correct and that users and miners decide, I asked you to show me in the code where it says users and miners can't change threshold for activating a fork. Only it should be obvious that if code were introduced to say it always has to be 95%, that rule itself could still change if people ran different code. So again, you can't make an argument as to why the above quoted statement is incorrect. You don't actually have an argument, you just have a series of overly emotive and misguided pleas that don't actually mean anything.

The point is no one needs permission to code anything. Not me, not you, not XT, not UASF, not BU, not Core, nor any other person or group. You are the only one advocating that developers aren't allowed to code what they want. And even if someone did agree with you (and there's no sign of that happening yet), there's no practical way to enforce it. There is no code to prevent softforks. You are advocating a social change because there is no code to achieve your desired goal. You then cry "social drama" when anyone points out that what you are advocating is yet more social drama because what you want isn't even based on code or logic. It's just one emotional plea after another with you. You say it's about the code, but every "argument" you make boils down to a plea for people to not code stuff you don't personally approve of. I'll say it again, none of us are here to go out of our way to appease you. You don't always get what you want. People can code stuff you don't like. It's allowed.

No amount of you calling them "inflight updates" instead of softforks will change reality to prevent them from happening in future. There isn't code you can "strip out" to prevent "backdoor activate or F**k off". What you want is not possible. Go play with fiat if you don't like softforks. That's the only solution anyone can offer you.

//EDIT: Oh god, there's more. For the love of fuck stop double posting.

Quote from: franky1 on November 27, 2018, 10:46:28 PM

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

"The original consensus mechanism", is not fixed. You do not personally get to decide that we have to set in stone forever what the threshold for fork activation has to be. It's just another one of those things that is not your call to make. If everyone happened to agree with you that it has to be 95% forever, fair enough. But I think that's an incredibly dumb idea and would result in a totally ossified codebase where nothing ever changes. Maybe that's precisely what you want; a completely dormant and stagnant Bitcoin, mired in petty squabbling forever, while it is gradually surpassed by other market contenders you happen to hodl BCH. I mean, who can even tell anymore with you? There must be some reason for the insane drivel you spout. It's only natural for some of us to assume it's malicious at this stage.

Quote from: franky1 on November 27, 2018, 10:46:28 PM

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for

Imagine you actually understood consensus and realised it doesn't matter who the developer is. Devs don't decide consensus. How many more times?