Quote from: DooMAD on February 05, 2019, 07:20:21 PM

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.

mr flip flop

if core want to change the rules.. and its core nodes that disconnect opposers. then its not the opposers that need to "rejoin by following the consensus rules again" because if your trying to twist your rhetoric to be about BEFORE activation.. then no rules have changed yet thus the opposers are and would be running the same rules.. OBVIOUSLY

the only condition where opposers would need to change anything to "follow the rules" (as if they are not following the rules).. is if the rules have changed.. thus AFTER
so its obvious your rant was talking about AFTER because thats the only time an opposer wont be "following the rules"

now...
getting to the point of before activation. WHERE RULES HAVE NOT CHANGED. if core are disconnecting nodes BEFORE cores bips activate then your nonsense about "rejoin by following rules" does not apply because the opposers were following the current rules, but were simply objecting and opposing cores FUTURE proposal
thus core nodes were not doing consensus. they were instead being contentious by throwing out nodes simply due to brand bias to fake approval by only having approval nodes left on the network, to get the bip activated.

you also rant about how you as a unique user have the free choice to disconnct whomever you like from your node. but as your link in an earlier post shows. it was not about unique users manually disconnecting nodes pre-vote deadline/pre activation. it was CODE that biasedly wanted to disconnect certain bitcoin node versions.
so you cant blame the users for manually disconnecting certain nodes. it was the devs who wrote code to automatically disconnect certain nodes, out of pure bias to ensure only segwit1x got activated.
and yes. core devs(blockstream devs more specifically) because of how FIBRE(mattblue) functions as the ringfense layer between mining pools and user nodes had the ultimate say in what data streams from pools to the majority of nodes
..
anyways, your obviously trying too hard to defend cores actions. so just keep it short and sweet. you love centralisation and you think the community should just sheep follow core or get thrown off the network

have a nice day
P.S you seem to be very emotional with all your insults. so i wonder what is behind your motives. why you are so hard nosed dedicated and devoted to wanting core centralisation.
let me guess.. youll flip flop about how consensus should not exist because now you believe that miners and users should not have a choice because that means that devs need others "permission" and your beliefs are that thre should be no permission..

to which ill tell you again.. learn true consensus

also if someone was to check post histories they would see that YOU are the one throwing out the majority of insults. but to address the concern you have about alternative clients being sheep. ill reword it to your buddies prefered buzzwords. seeing as you love their words
"compatible"
"downstream"
"filtered"
"outerlayer"
"not part of the peer-to peer relay layer"
"stripped"
"not quite full nodes"

Quote from: DooMAD on February 05, 2019, 07:20:21 PM

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.

this statement here proves you have no clue about satoshi's consensus solution to the byzantine generals issue. which made bitcoin so revolutionary

and why core bypassing it purely to gain dictatorship goes against the whole point of decentralisation..

.. but hey, your buddy groups echo chamber is that of wanting a commercial network that does not use a blockchain(LN). so i can see why you dont care to learn about why blockchains and byzantine generals issues and consensus, and why such are not important to you.

you might aswell just go play around on a LN forum and really show your admiration for it, as your wasting ur time on a bitcoin forum by showing your obvious lack of care and understanding of what made bitcoin bitcoin