Quote from: franky1 on February 12, 2019, 12:28:20 AM

seriously.. you learned nothing..

seriously sort your flip flips out

Now read Squatter's post I've quoted below repeatedly until you understand it:

Quote from: squatter on February 11, 2019, 07:10:31 PM

Quote from: franky1 on February 10, 2019, 09:18:37 AM

pools cant change bitcoin rules. only devs can when devs make node upgrade options. so it was the devs that removed the fee formulae

You're confused about what "Bitcoin rules" are. Transaction priority was never a consensus rule. It was a client side rule. Not required by the protocol. That's why there was no fork when miners (and later Core) removed it from their clients.

Fees in general are not a consensus rule. Even things like the minimum relay fee can be altered by individual nodes without breaking consensus. No one has to "publicly release a client" for any of this to apply. It's just a matter of changing some configuration settings.

Speak to the miners if you want to convince someone that your ideas about fees are worth implementing. They are the only ones that can help you.

There is no flip flop, you just don't understand Bitcoin well enough. In fact, this scenario perfectly demonstrates why "devs don't need permission" and "devs can't change rules unless others agree" is not a flip flop. And we all know how big a fan you are of running scenarios. Let's pretend for a moment that Devs did introduce a fixed fee formula as a consensus rule (which has never been done before) in a new version of their client. There's nothing to stop them putting that in their client if they wanted to. They don't need permission to do that. But then, if non-mining users chose to run it and none of the miners chose to run it, there would be a fork. Miners could continue to use the current client-side rules and anyone else running the new client where fees are a consensus rule could find themselves on a network that has no miners on it. Good job, franky1, your idea just split the network in a divisive fashion. But seeing as you claim not to be a fan of controversy, it's probably not a smart move. Which is one of the many reason devs chose, quite wisely, to leave fees up to the miners.

If people don't agree with the code and don't run it, then clearly the devs don't make all the decisions. Those securing the chain have to agree and run the code before the code can do anything. If some of the people securing the chain enforce a consensus rule that others securing the chain don't, there can be a fork. But not all rules are consensus rules. Some things are left for users and miners to decide as node policy. There are good reasons for this.

Again, you need to convince miners that your ideas about fees are beneficial. Fees are not a consensus rule, because that could conceivably split the network. Constantly raving about what devs do or don't do will not get you what you want. Stop telling us to "research" when you are the ones who demonstrates a total lack of understanding time and time again.