Quote from: franky1 on February 05, 2019, 05:17:17 PM

^ more flip flops

here he goes again about thrown off the network AFTER activation.. yet he ignores the whole point of PUSHING people off the network BEFORE activation.

Show me where I said "after". That word doesn't even appear in my post. Users can disconnect other nodes at any time. If you are disconnected before your proposed rule change activates, I'll repeat again that any funds you have on the network are still safely secured and you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules again. There is nothing incorrect about my statement. My words do not solely relate to "AFTER activation". If you can't understand that, it's your error, not mine. Every time you say "flip flop" I say you fail at comprehending plain English. That, or you're attempting to deliberately twist or distort what I'm saying. It's hard to tell with you sometimes.

You don't have a point. You just have overly emotive appeals to childish notions of "why can't everyone just play nice together?" and other such "fluffy clouds and rainbows" nonsense. Sorry, but the real world doesn't play nice. It's time for you to grow up and accept that life isn't fair and that not everyone thinks you deserve a medal just for taking part.

Run the code you want to run. If doing that puts you on another network, that's a "you" problem. None of us owe you a solution to the part where you want something we clearly don't want. Your freedom only extends to the point where you encroach on the freedom of others. If you do that, you are free to leave.

Quote from: franky1 on February 05, 2019, 05:17:17 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on February 05, 2019, 05:11:35 PM

you can rejoin the network at any time by simply following consensus rules

gotta love the warped mind he has
in essense... you can rejoin the network if you give up your objection and code your node to flag that you desire some feature activating.(meaning only option is to show agreement)

Oh wow, you're actually starting to get it. YES FRANKY1, THAT'S HOW CONSENSUS WORKS. USERS WHO AGREE WITH EACH OTHER BUILD A CHAIN TOGETHER ON THE SAME NETWORK. INCOMPATIBLE CODE CAN BE FORKED OFF AT ANY TIME TO FORM A DIFFERENT NETWORK. Took you long enough, but I'm glad we got there in the end. Well done.

It's not an altcoin until a fork occurs, but either side can reject the other at any time. If you're going to run code that proposes an incompatible change, it should go without saying that you run the risk of other users being so vehemently opposed to your change that they may want to remove you from their network. Consider it an occupational hazard. Either those proposing the change can initiate a fork, or those who opposing the change can initiate the fork. But no doubt you'll somehow fail to comprehend this and label it a flip flop as well, or tell me another made up reason why I need to research something, or just make some other weak deflection about social drama or whatever other catchphrases come to mind.

To give an example to help you avoid your inevitable confusion, the client you are running proposes a change to the current consensus rules. It runs on the BTC chain and currently enforces BTC consensus rules. But it also contains incompatible code that has not been activated. As such, it's an alternative client, not an altcoin. One option is that users of your client could change the rules they enforce, enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other. Another option (the one you don't like) is that users who are not running your client could change the rules they enforce, also enacting a fork, because the two rulesets would no longer agree with each other. Alternatively, users of neither client change the rules they enforce and things remain as they currently do. All three of these options are valid. You do not have the right to rule any of them out.

It's not viable to have a network where two diametrically opposed sides want to move in completely different directions. What does it achieve to keep the two opposed sides on the same network, with neither side achieving anything? We'd still be in a bitterly entrenched civil war, stuck in total deadlock if things hadn't unfolded how they did. That's why it's far better for those who want raw throughput to do their thing on another chain while users on this chain focus on the things they want to implement. Both sides get to move forward. We then get to see which path works best. Sometimes decentralisation can take the form of different chains trying different things. If those other chains demonstrate success, we might adopt similar ideas on this chain later, who knows?

Quote from: franky1 on February 05, 2019, 05:17:17 PM

so where is the consensus CHOICE to actually oppose a feature activation (imagine it being malicious code) if the only options are accept cores BIP or get thrown off BEFORE the bip even activates.

I honestly don't know how you can sit there and claim those are the only options when you are running a client that wasn't made by Core and hasn't been "thrown off". You have a choice. You've already made it. How do you then pretend the choice you've made somehow isn't an option? It's lunacy. Other clients exist. You clearly know that if you are running one. Try being less dishonest.

Your problem, as I've explained to you time and time again, is that you need OTHER USERS to agree with the choice you've made. If users agreed with you, they'd be running the same client as you. Apparently, they don't agree with you. Keep arguing whatever it is you're going to argue and I'll continue decimating it, but your client has hardly any users. Nothing you can say will change this fact. The stuff you want is categorically not what other users want.

Features only activate if users run them. If code was malicious, users wouldn't run it, so it wouldn't activate. How can you possibly fail to grasp this? Stop pretending that the code users have run to disconnect incompatible clients is malicious just because you personally disagree with it.

Quote from: franky1 on February 05, 2019, 05:17:17 PM

yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network. Please keep calling them sheep. Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do. Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.