what is the London system?

"Systems" can be played against most setups from the opponent. If you want more information on what opening name categories there are, you can check this video I made fairly recently. 

Introduction To The London System & Jobava London System...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-london-system

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell

ayo i play london

Nice

That opening resembles you to a tee: Plain and boring

most people say that...

I also would not want to walk around you for fear of getting stabbed

@EKAFC
Playing an opening says nothing about personalities. The London System is only boring if both parties know how to equalize the position and choose that route, but there are "more exciting" lines such as the Steinitz Countergambit, Indian Game: London System, or Indian Game: East Indian, London System, Indian Game: Spielmann-Indian Variation, Indian Game: Tartakower Defense, et cetera. You could also just stop playing d4 d5 and d4 Nf6 entirely out of fear of the London System, and instead play the Old Benoni, Modern, English, or Dutch Defenses. However, don't insult players for trying to learn a simple, solid system that they can play against everything (and against you, win, apparently).

I was making fun of London the city in my last post. Also, I do have a negative win rate against London the city but once I found a better system, I have a 53% win rate on Lichess. The London is not very ambitious compared to a Queen's Gambit for example. 

Also, I will insult people that play unambitious openings like the London, Exchange French, Colle System, QGD Slav, etc. The only exception is the Exchange Slav where I most often transpose into the Winawer Countergambit. Doing this actually helps them they will realize that they should play ambitiously instead of mindlessly playing the same moves. There is a reason why my win rate with White (Lichess) is above average

The London System isn't unambitious. You play the whole system to blast open short castles. Grandmasters have lost to the London System in 14 moves. The unambitious player is the player who sees the London System and says "well, time to start playing defensive moves". The London System has a countergambit, the Steinitz Countergambit, which is actually winning for black on move 2 (1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 c5). However, I'll bet that you never took the time to actually learn how to play against it or counter it, instead opting to complain on online forums about how the London System is "broken and boring" and those who play it are "cowards and don't understand chess". What openings do you even play anyways?

I mean considering d4 is anywhere from .25 to .5 for white depending on how long you let an engine run, having the game down to zeroes by move 2 isn't good. 

The London? Never heard of it.

You're seriously relying on an engine evaluation on move 1?

Optimissed is right, this is nonsense. Winning for black on move 2? 

The position after 2...c5 is just equal. And white has a pleasant option between the calm 3.e3 or the interesting gambit 3.e4!?, which are both roughly equal with best play.

Either you have bad judgement or you didn't mean what you wrote.

Obviously, this line is not "winning for black". The empirical stats are very even and Stockfish suggests that it is slightly advantageous to white.