go do some research. go watch some eastenders. go do somthing to atleast expand your views of bitcoin or your social drama limits
your flip flops and misunderstandings and denials of one thing to suggest another then flopping to deny another to suggest a further have become boring tactics of just social drivel that you continually try.
by implementing a fee mechanism can do things that counter your centralist mantra, while helping the community and pools and others.
waffle all you like to say that pools are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.
waffle all you like to say that users are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.
it was you that was emotionally spouting out your usual echo's that core can upgrade the network.. (remember your permissionless rhetoric). so dont now cry when i actually use your rhetoric against you to suggest core should do something that benefits a decentralised community.. because no one else can without getting rekt
(i can guess your next flop.. that core dont need to listen to community desires/needs/idea's... which just circles back to the waffles listed above flips)
yes i get it anything to promote decentralisation you hate. but to then have you flop your own rhetoric about core and its compatibility and permisionless stuff.. is just you failing. moving from core being the trusted devs that you adore, to core just being chimney sweeps/janitors all in the space of a few posts is amusing to see you flop so much
end result
my OPINION and pure DISCUSSION is about things that can help. it is just words on a fotum that harm no one
emphasis words on a forum. not code with mandated forks. so relax, dont get emotional
your reaction, i presume is that it might accidently open a few minds and have people want it, thus you fear that there may be a chance of it happening openly via a community open choice, without me even needing to write code. infuriates you.
it seems you actually fear the possibility of a NEW fee priority formulae being added as a consensus rule, you fear any discussion thats not optimistic to the centralist roadmap agenda
but oh well.
we all know you only want one direction of centralisation and commercialisation to occur. but beyond that you have become very boring with your unresearched flip flops.
especially when your flips flops are used against you.
but instead of trying to over-dramatise my comments. do some research
have a nice year,
your flip flops and misunderstandings and denials of one thing to suggest another then flopping to deny another to suggest a further have become boring tactics of just social drivel that you continually try.
by implementing a fee mechanism can do things that counter your centralist mantra, while helping the community and pools and others.
waffle all you like to say that pools are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.
waffle all you like to say that users are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.
it was you that was emotionally spouting out your usual echo's that core can upgrade the network.. (remember your permissionless rhetoric). so dont now cry when i actually use your rhetoric against you to suggest core should do something that benefits a decentralised community.. because no one else can without getting rekt
(i can guess your next flop.. that core dont need to listen to community desires/needs/idea's... which just circles back to the waffles listed above flips)
yes i get it anything to promote decentralisation you hate. but to then have you flop your own rhetoric about core and its compatibility and permisionless stuff.. is just you failing. moving from core being the trusted devs that you adore, to core just being chimney sweeps/janitors all in the space of a few posts is amusing to see you flop so much
end result
my OPINION and pure DISCUSSION is about things that can help. it is just words on a fotum that harm no one
emphasis words on a forum. not code with mandated forks. so relax, dont get emotional
your reaction, i presume is that it might accidently open a few minds and have people want it, thus you fear that there may be a chance of it happening openly via a community open choice, without me even needing to write code. infuriates you.
it seems you actually fear the possibility of a NEW fee priority formulae being added as a consensus rule, you fear any discussion thats not optimistic to the centralist roadmap agenda
but oh well.
we all know you only want one direction of centralisation and commercialisation to occur. but beyond that you have become very boring with your unresearched flip flops.
especially when your flips flops are used against you.
but instead of trying to over-dramatise my comments. do some research
have a nice year,
Uh-oh, someone's turning into a cranky franky.
Maybe take your own advice from that other topic, which I've helpfully amended to fit this topic:
the crypto index imaginary developer control that concerns YOU so much is only a concern to YOU because YOU are the only one obsessively observing it.
here is the cure.
if YOU stopvisiting the site. being paranoid it stops becoming a concern to YOU. because apart from YOU. i dont see the whole community even giving a crap about some dumb website invented fantasy no one even heard of unless you highlight it.
thecrypto index fictional conspiracy you talk about is not a big community barometer / measure. the community dont care about it.
so calm down
here is the cure.
if YOU stop
the
so calm down
If you think I'm being unfair to you, it's because your ideas are fundamentally misguided. You don't even stop to consider the consequences. It almost seems like you can't even understand what the consequences would be, even when they're pointed out to you in no uncertain terms. Yes, I clearly do have legitimate concerns over a fee priority formula being added as a consensus rule. I support the notion of fairer fees based on how often people transact, that part is an idea I could get on board with. But your proposed implementation is utterly abysmal. I explained why it would be a bad idea as a consensus rule and you haven't presented any counter-arguments to convince me otherwise. Because you don't understand why your idea is bad. You just repeat the same incoherent nonsense. You think you're discussing things that would help and I'm discussing why I believe you are wrong. This will continue until I believe you have stopped being wrong.
If you can't comprehend how your idea of fees being a consensus rule might split the network, then you are in no position to blame others for the fact that no one likes your ideas. The fault clearly lies with you.