my claim bit4 contentious hardfork to remove opposition to achieve 100% bit1 consensus activation of new feature
his claim:(over the years and recently)
flip: bit1 then bit4.. (soft)
flop: bit4 had nothing to do with anything and only bit1 occurred Disputed
flipflop: those not wanting activation done the bit4 fork Disputed
flopflip: bit4 had no effect Disputed
I'm not surprised you've managed to totally misinterpret what I've said. I'm pretty sure I didn't say the parts I've marked as disputed. If anyone (other than franky1) can corroborate the above accusation and say they also believe I've said those things, feel free to make yourselves known. I'll offer a retraction if I have misspoken.
My stance is, and always has been, that BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated Segwit with 90+% of the hashrate, but instead of acknowledging that, you continue to moan about a totally different BIP 141 and bit 1 flag only being at 45%:
its also even now possible to see the acceptance flag was only ~45% right up to end of july
You are talking about the wrong flag here. Technical fact. Do not even try to argue or weasel your way out of it. No "
do research", no "
scenarios", no "
social drama". You are talking about the wrong flag. That is not how SegWit was activated.
I then went on to point out that the small number of people being forked off the network were flagging neither bit 1 nor bit 4. They were flagging bit 6 or bit 8. This is not consensus being "
broken". This is consensus in action. A rule was introduced that any node with bit 6 or bit 8 would be disconnected due to concerns over the risk of replay attacks as a rival network had launched and had not yet changed their network magic. This is all well documented and completely factual, but you ignore it every time it is said to you. You maintain the stance that this is somehow immoral. I have stated my view you're just being emotional and there there are perfectly valid reasons to disconnect those users if they wish to run incompatible software. It had nothing to do with trying to rig the result in favour of activating SegWit.
i explained how blockchain data shows how consensus broke in the past and that tactic should never be used again..(OBVIOUSLY)
it was very much on topic and mentioned technical details about bit flags.
"
Mentioning details" about flags does not constitute a technical post unless you UNDERSTAND what those flags mean and you don't try to twist the data you're looking at to support narratives that simply aren't true. When you do that, you cross the line from "technical" to "techno-babble". And you cross that line OFTEN. It wasn't a "
tactic", consensus never "
broke" and it absolutely will happen again
if it is deemed necessary to protect the network. "
Should" is an opinion, not a technical argument.