firstly many months of your flip flops have shown you dont even know the difference between a soft and hard fork

secondly. soft or hard what i oppose is controversial activations done with mandated/biased code that bypasses consensus

but tell me again how you want to improve BITCOIN... oh wait, your mantra is just to defend CORE

Why don't you like it, it's only a word to describe people who like big blocks.


Bandwidth is limited, and not all nodes can be on fast connections all the time. That's reality. Full nodes have to validate the transactions against the UTXO-set to be sure that all the information is correct before it sends it to another node, which will do the process again, and it takes time. Then there are the blocks, which are to be validated the same as transactions.

Do you believe that Bitcoin Cash will work as well as Bitcoin if its blocks are constantly full?

What the hell are you even on about?  No doubt you're deliberately taking something out of context again, so if you could provide a direct quote from a Core dev regarding whatever it is you're spouting nonsense about, we can debunk it more efficiently.

If you're talking about the New York Agreement, I think you'll find you have to commit to something first before you can "back out" of it.  I know such concepts might be difficult for you to grasp while you still entertain the misguided notion that devs have to do what you want them to.   

That's not how it works.  You either provide evidence that proves the Bitcoin Core dev team expressed their commitment to 2mb+SegWit, or otherwise I state once again that you are a lying sack of human excrement.  You can't just make stuff up and then reply "research" when someone calls you out on it (well... you can, obviously, because that's what you do in nearly every topic you post in, but it only makes it obvious that you're trolling).

Finally a substantiated post from franky1.  Hallelujah.  Honestly never thought I'd see the day.  Why couldn't you just do that the first time?  If I didn't have to drag it out of you, I might have even been tempted to merit you. 

So your assertion is that no code was ever made that conforms to this agreement?  Is that correct?  Because it should be emphasised that this agreement doesn't promise that a 2mb+SegWit hardfork would take place, merely that an implementation would be "available".  Are you absolutely certain such code does not exist?  Because if so, I will concede the point to you.

And you wonder why no one listens to you.  Do you honestly expect that people have nothing better to do with their lives than verifying the thousands of posts you make?  Clearly you don't have a life, but other people do.  Call it spoonfeeding if you like, but search engines don't yield helpful results for "wtf is franky1 waffling about today?" and we're not mind-readers.

Yes, those 5 signatories do appear to have agreed to something they didn't deliver.  However, 5 signatories doth not a dev team maketh.  Other devs didn't seem particularly supportive of their efforts and you're normally the one screaming about how everyone has to agree (hint: they don't).  Just because 5 people said something would happen, it doesn't mean all the contributors to that project are bound by it.  Your gripe is with those 5 people.  Now call the waaaaambulance and move on with your life.

But when presented with real facts, you turn around, follow another course, and use social drama and propaganda to change the conversation. When presented with the real historical account of something, and how it happened, you turn around, follow another course, and shout "social drama". Haha.

doomad + windfury

YAWN
now go learn about bitcoin.

meanwhile when core now are "THE REPO", "THE REFERENCE", "THE CORE" but when a dev says they can code a version. but then doesnt even bother. thus not even getting the other devs to ACK or nACK.. or even let the community get a chance to download. you cant then try pulling out stats that XXX are against it. especially when its not even all xxx actually code. majority are just document translators and grammar checkers

but 2 years later the same limited devs do write a version for 1mbsegwit. suddenly Mr doomad declares that its what the team wanted and what the community wanted.. even though the flip flops and stats and data show the community didnt want it and it only got activated due to apartheid tricks by a limited amount of people

anyway, doomad. go learn about bitcoin and if you dont like my comments this forum has an ignore button
the ignore button should be your friend because its obvious how ignorant you are about bitcoin and the community. as all you care about is core. the funniest part is that your social drama pokes against me just echo into "coz franky said" yet you dont realise that there are many many others that are not core loyalists. you have become so obsessed and so narrow minded that you actually think that i am a single point of attack. (hilarious)

so again for the multiple time on many topics. stop wasting your life on "things franky said" and start learning about bitcoin, start caring about bitcoin and not just core. actually take a break, relax, catch your breath and spend some time looking at the wider world and understand that "franky" is not a threat to you. then. once that has sunk in spend some more time learning about actual bitcoin

you do realise for longer than you have even been a forum member i have been mentioning ways to fit more tx per block without needing to jump to "big blocks" ('big blocks' refers to not progressive small adjustments but huge leaps such as the fud propaganda of 'gigabytes by midnight')

there are many ways to gain more transaction throughput, things such as
reduce the sigops:- reduces ability to fill a block with just a handfull of transactions and helps relay speeds
less wishy washy bloated tx formats
a fee structure that changes people habits
progressive buffer growth, not leaps

also it was core with their mandatory bilateral split (a buzzword gmax uses) that was organised and struck first.. should you care to read some code and blockdata(like i told you several times in many topics). so dont go now trying to meander the conversation into bitcoin cash social drama and again try to concentrate on learning about bitcoin.

really go try it.
i find it funny how either you are ignorant to research things told to you sveral times before, or how arrogant you are to keep mentioning things you dont know about but just repeat just to cause social drama to deflect and meander the topic away from actual topic discussion.

now do not reply to me. spend time learning about bitcoin and lets have the next reply you make concern bitcoin. not social drama. if you end up replying to me because you dont like what i have said. press the ignore button instead. then go use the spare time to learn about bitcoin