Quote from: we-btc on February 01, 2024, 09:39:11 PM

Bitcoin needs to remain decentralized and the way that this is accomplished is making it easy for nodes to decide which version of Core they would like to run. The problem with this is that most nodes have no idea that it is their responsibility to keep Bitcoin decentralized. They install the next update blindly. This puts control in the hands a few developers and if they are funded by anyone there will be perceived favoritism. Said another way, it becomes a pay to play game like our government has become.

since 2017. it does not matter what version people use
and completely funny how you said version of... core

a. core chose the name as it means center
b. core is core is core. your not offering other options

since 2017 it doesnt matter if you dont upgrade. core can slide in new things without the need of majority consent.. they call this trick "backward compatibility"

Quote from: DooMAD on Today at 01:57:49 PM

Quote from: ArikeTobi on February 01, 2024, 10:41:41 PM

Quote from: franky1 on February 01, 2024, 10:28:47 PM

guess most people in this topic have not realised whats already occurred in the last 7 years with code edits that have affected bitcoin

Senior man, we are keen to learning, please go ahead in telling us more regarding what happened, personally I know that not everything happening are visible to us, but those within or close to the circle could tell more and better.

He might have a high rank, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should trust what he says. I have that particular user on ignore because he constantly spouts tin-foil-hat conspiracy nonsense. His version of events will likely be exaggerated at best and outright lies at worst. He has a long-standing vendetta against developers after they made fun of him. It's all a bit petty and feeble, really.

funny part is i was making fun out of the core devs by calling out on all the broken promises
first butting of heads was when i called them out of their changes from 2016 which i highlight here.. (and 8 years later look at the ordinals junk)

Quote from: franky1 on November 24, 2016, 01:54:38 AM

secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.

thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.

fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain.
..

we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or other nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.

then we butted heads about the broken promises of extra transactions per blocks that didnt happen (no 2x-4x tx count)

the core devs do not want to do things the community want for bitcoin..
read all their big feature additions (PSBT, Taproot, fee bump, etc etc) and see who benefits from it the most. (hint middlemen groups on subnetworks)

and its actually idiots like doomad that say core devs should not be asked to do things for the community and are instead should do things they are paid to do or want to do themselves for their own internal reasons. basically doomad adores core devs being the unscrutinised gods of bitcoin with not responsibility of care to real bitcoiner community and he adores commercialising. he loves the idea of recruiting people away from bitcoin and moving them to other systems,.. just read his post history..(he prefers people to use lightning, even when lightning is proven to be buggy, flawed centralised and not what bitcoin was made for). doomad also does not believe in consent of the masses(consensus) his buzzword for his dis-consent is "permissionless"

as for all of my stuff i can back up what i say happened in the past, about softening the network security, less requirement of usernode consensus, changing the protocol/policies causing all the annoyances, because code and blockdata exist to prove it all. doomads opinions are jsut based on quotes from his favoured clan of people that think like him.
doomad just hates that i dont treat core as gods