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 using neither bit 1 nor bit 4. The had network service 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.
the "perfectly valid reasons to disconnect those users if they wish to run incompatible software".. those people you speak of were running software that was perfectly compatible with consensus 2009-(july)2017
bit1 and bit4 were not part of active consensus in 2009-(july)2017
yep you got things wrong again
the disconnect was of those not flagging a NEW temporary thing(flags bit4 and bit1)
it was not to disconnect people running new features consensus has never recognised.. quite the opposite
the disconnect was of those NOT SHOWING new bits
any consensus update if there is going to be a clash of incompatibility. you cant go back in time and change the network magic of old nodes.. so its the new software that has to change its magic if the new software caused a fork
or better yet. dont cause a fork before a consensus change. so that there is no fork to cause a clash
or better yet. if you cant get activation threshold. accept the loss and then try something different that the community can get behind without needing to even threaten a fork to then be able to activate
oh and it is funny that you dont dispute your own claim that bit1 then bit 4.. even though you now claim bit1 didnt do anything and that only bit 4 activated segwit..
seems your the one leaping to different versions of events.
try to learn the purpose of bit4 before you flipflop anymore.
try to atleast stick with one narrative..
try to include block data
try to learn which direction time travels in.
try to learn you cant go back in time and re-write history or code of old nodes
i do find it funny how you believe that the old nodes (already compiled and running for years) are the attackers.
funnily enough though is real history shows it was the code of the newer nodes of 2017 that caused the block conflicts