that devs can create whatever code what they want and users can run whatever code they want, then their opinions on consensus are equally meaningless in my view.
There is an important reason why this understanding is crucial. I'll take the opportunity to repeat something I said in 2018 (with a small portion removed in the spirit of keeping things civil):
It's all well and good saying that the community should have a bigger say on what the code is, but then you have the chicken and egg problem where users can't agree or disagree with code until it actually exists and then they can all see what that code does. Then you have the small, but insurmountable, obstacle where Bitcoin is not some sort of committee or parliament with points of order and rules governing social conduct. There is no way for anyone to enforce a rule that says people can't write code with an arbitrary activation date. There's no way to enforce a rule saying we aren't allowed to have softforks. It's just people writing and running code. If you want to write some code, go ahead. If you want to run some code, go ahead. (...) That's about the extent of your influence here.
contradictions.
i know your plaything the
Doomad: "anyone can run software they code/choose" EG to have colourful backgrounds or store data locally differently
just to game contradict
Doomad: "no one can run software and change the protocol alone
just to game contradict
Doomad: "changes to the protocol only happened in my opinion through bip9 because i never run UASF or 91"
just to game contradict
yea you played this game.
but here is the thing.
mining pools actually got threatened by the NYA agreement of the ECONOMIC NODES (merchants, payment gates and exchanges and some other pools) that were using UASF. and pools fell inline flagging the bit number to activate segwit even if they had not upgraded their own software to run segwit.
blocks were then actively rejected that were not flagging it which then got the red line above its 90%threshold (it achieved 100%)
the fact that it achieved 100% in a week should be revealing as something odd even to you. as you and me both agree there is never 100% agreement in a wide community
it does not need 90% of all user nodes to upgrade their software before a consensus change happens.
the extra difference in 2017 is that it only needed the power players to run software that would reject normal/old blocks on a certain date.. which is what the threat and action was.
This makes no rational sense. A fork
is a consensus change. Further, no one individual is in a position to determine when consensus can or cannot change. This should be self-evident.
My stance is, and always has been, that BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated Segwit with 90+% of the hashrate
BIP91 bit 4 flag is what activated SegWit. I'm not sure how many more times I need to repeat it.
"
Mandatory" BIP148, to the best of my knowledge, was only implemented in the UASF client. However, I never ran that client, so I don't personally recognise it as part of Bitcoin. That code never had the opportunity to activate as BIP91 activated first and superseded it. We could also easily spend the next few years arguing about what "
mandatory" means and how I disagree with shaolinfry's use of the word, but it's entirely inconsequential now.
already answered.
yea cos you didnt use it you think its not part of bitcoin
well ill use your mindset
i never used LN software so its not part of bitcoin..
but here is the thing
nothing on bitcoin shows anything about LN msats or LN gossip messages. so in bitcoins dataset and in cores own bips. there is no LN
bit what you do find in bitcoin blockdata and bitcoin cores bips is that there is stuff related to how the consensus change occured in 2017
even if you didnt run the software doesnt mean it didnt happen