Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 01:15:32 PM

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 12:36:08 PM

so lets stay at a same level of standards
because your consensus questions have flimsy "can be, can happen", rather then "do, are" your not asking anything finite and certain(your same standard argued this when you said my questions were not wrote correct)

i bothered to appease groupies cries with short questions of finite/certain points to answer.. also then to appease your cries of believed bias i re-reformatted my questions to be unbiased and be finite in both for/against formats of a&b variants, so perhaps you can reciprocate, by writing questions without the flimsiness of "can be, can happen" which has no certainty being asked

Statements can be conditional or situational. Take, for example, "The sky is blue - agree/disagree". Sounds simple enough, right? But what about sunrise/sunset? What about the night? It's not always blue and, as such, is a flawed statement. So I would phrase it "The sky can be blue" - agree/disagree"

but then your not stating what it cant be.

EG
you want to set the narrative that users can be thrown of the network, yet as i know your tactic you want to turn any answer into an argument about bitcoins 2017 event, fitting whatever narrative you please. taking the flimsy answer however you please.

consensus 2009-2016 required majority acceptance voluntarily before activation occured.
consensus 2017-20xx required didnt require majority. instead it mandated just a 'bit' flag change without need of software upgrade to force a change. where any pool not changing the bit would have their block rejected in august 2017

this was not a majority accept then activate it was a mandate. even the bip91 and 148 state this. and you know this. even though you dont want to admit it