Quote from: franky1 on March 23, 2019, 01:41:40 AM

"there is no vote"
well thats true now core have ways to bypass consensus

You are entitled to your wrong opinion. But it should be pretty obvious by this point that for the entire time you've spent on this board, every single time you've ever used the word "consensus", you are referring to a version of it that only exists in your imagination. Here in the real world, functioning adults find themselves in situations where pragmatism is favourable to childish naivety. Maybe give that a try for once?

Quote from: franky1 on March 23, 2019, 01:41:40 AM

so doomad by saying consensus(voting) doesnt exist, there is no thresholds needed anymore.

You have a preconceived notion that "threshold" always means 95% hardfork. Recorded events have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that such a preconception is utterly wrong. The threshold for any consensus changes is clearly dynamic. It is entirely dependant on what code users are running at the time.

You are welcome to express your written preference for 95% hardforks. You are welcome to run code that doesn't activate a feature until there is 95% support. But the simple fact of the matter is that if other people on the network are running code that says the feature can activate at 80% hardfork, or that a change can be implemented via softfork, your preference is not sufficient to block the majority.

Quote from: franky1 on March 23, 2019, 01:41:40 AM

and if doomad dares to flip flop to then say nothing gets activated unless majority vote to activate it.. then he is just flip flopping and being pedantic

doomad.. your flip flops are stupid
you say there is no vote and then say majority.(facepalm)

94% is a majority.
87% is a majority.
75% is a majority.

You can't single-handedly enforce 95% as the only acceptable definition of the word "majority". You can't single-handedly enforce making people wait around until a certain date or the threshold you personally want to see. If it was a vote (it's not), you would be able to enforce those things. Voting is not akin to freedom. Voting is how those in control present the illusion of freedom. Voting restricts freedom, so I can see why you'd naturally be a fan. You would love a Bitcoin where you could suppress and stagnate any advancements and hold the network to ransom until you got your larger blocks. Screw your precious voting. Screw your "95% or stagnate" ultimatums. Screw your hate speech against the developers who found a perfectly valid way to keep Bitcoin intact while implementing SegWit. No one cares if you don't think it's fair.

Quote from: franky1 on March 23, 2019, 01:41:40 AM

if there is no vote then there is no majority/threshold
dont then say there is consensus because you will ofcourse then say the network is permissionless and devs dont need consent

for months you keep flip flopping. atleast stick to one narrative
again stop flip flopping. stick to one narrative. admit core control the network. (no vote/no permission=nodes are just sheep)

Wrong. But thanks for allowing me to point out why you're wrong. Please keep telling us Core are in control becuase you are bitter about the fact that you couldn't hold the network hostage until Core coded a client supporting a larger base blocksize, like you clearly thought would happen because you don't understand freedom or consensus.

Quote from: pooya87 on March 23, 2019, 04:50:25 AM

as far as "freedom" goes, anybody should be allowed to make any kind of change and make any proposal they want and have the freedom to put it out there and ask others to follow it if they want. but also it is our duty to fight proposals that have a very high possibility of splitting bitcoin into two. in my opinion the damage that such type of split can cause is far more dire than anything else.

And that's it in a nutshell. We can definitely have a discussion where everyone can argue the pros and cons of any given proposal, but it's categorically not a vote where everyone has to agree. Each user will naturally do what they believe is best for the good of the network as a whole. Those who can reach an agreement will move forward together.