Weak ideas shouldn't survive, so they don't.
core only had 35% vote. so they should have stopped and walked away with tail between its legs under their segwitx1
but instead they done a contentious fork to push out th opposition to then fake a majority.. and im using YOUR words so you cant later deny it happenend like you usually do with your flip flops of social distraction
I'm not denying one dev team (again, there are multiple teams) wrote code that disconnected incompatible clients from the network. Clearly they did. .... The part I deny is that it's somehow morally wrong for them to do that. I will defend their actions. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they did. I had no complaints about it. Everything I said then, I will stand by now
If you run code that goes against the will of other users, they can run code to disconnect you from their network.
permissionless network means you want users to have no say. no permission to stop devs.
the DEVS wrote the code of the mandate they even wrote the compatibility so that it bypasses true consensus.
it was not a user decision.
you kep saying it yourself that you hate the idea of devs needing user permission. you keep saying you love the idea for devs to just write code and activate it without permission
atleast wake up to your own flip flops and decide if you want to stick with a flip narrative or a flop narrative and stick with one
anyways thats you wanting a dictatorship
LEARN consensus
learn byzantine generals issue
learn how bitcoin became a innovation which core has now eroded away and made into their centralist network with only 'distribution'.. not decentralisation