Quote from: franky1 on April 08, 2019, 08:04:34 PM

*stuff*

Even if you can't comprehend what I'm saying, I'm sure others can. Alternative clients have a right to exist, but the right for alternative clients to exist does not negate the rights of other Bitcoin users to remove them from their network at any time and for any reason. It should be clear that it's not any sort of injustice when some alternative clients have been disconnected from the Bitcoin network. There is absolutely no requirement to wait for an alternative client's feature to activate before deciding to disconnect it if that feature is not compatible. Particularly if the change it proposes has the potential to put the security of the network at risk. It is unreasonable to expect users of client X to wait for client Y's feature to activate when users of client Y don't need to wait for X and can remove X users from their network at any time by activating their feature in client Y.

Consensus does not mean everyone has to agree. If everyone had to agree, there would be no need for a consensus mechanism at all. Consensus means those that do agree move forwards together. It means some people can and will be left behind if they don't agree with a larger number of users. There is no way to fake or bypass consensus. If the network you are on is churning out blocks at regular intervals, that's all the consensus you need. But unless you are on the chain with the most accumulated proof of work and the most economic activity, you have not earned the right to claim that your network is the real Bitcoin. A small number of users do not have the ability to block a larger number of users from implementing changes. This has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, even if some people try to dispute it, or worse still, try to twist and distort the meaning of consensus to sound like something more or less akin to Democracy.

It is not possible to implement anything resembling Democracy in Bitcoin and many would argue it would not be desirable to do so even if that were possible. There is no way to prevent people writing or running code that would completely disregard whatever democratic processes such a system might have. If a person or group attempts to pick an arbitrary date and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that date by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network. If a person or group attempts to set an arbitrary activation threshold and writes the corresponding code for a feature to activate, users can choose to ignore that activation threshold by running different software and could also choose to disconnect such clients from their network. But in doing so, they run the risk of finding themselves on another network if they ignore a change that a large number of users want. You have the option to rejoin the network you left by choosing to conform to consensus rules once again. No one person or group is in control. It's not developers who make consensus decisions because the only thing that matters is what software people run.