send them to invalid uᴉoɔʇᴉq address -> coins destroyed

further reading:

https://medium.com/@alcio/how-to-destroy-moondollars-255bb6f2142e#.fvpfi04zi

edit: 1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE seems like a good start

I thought uᴉoɔʇᴉq has hard forked before, in 2012 or 2013? If you give enough notice, hard fork can be implemented properly.

i'd love to pick your brain and ask you questions

like "so why is it you are shooting for 95% hashing power before activating segwit?" but you're busy, and I dont want to disturb you

Yes, BIP16 used a lower activation threshold. The modern high thresholds are a result of learning from (and successfully preventing) the consensus disruption that happened with low thresholds.

but you're right i should read up more and then i'd be the one schooling other poeple here.

if a miner minted a block today that had 1 segwit-like TX in it, i seriously doubt that block would be valid.

Segwit soft fork demonstrated by using soft forks you can always do rule-breaking changes (like change the transaction/block format) while still not being rejected by the old clients.

for me, in the b itcoin discussion sub, anytime b itcoin is used it is showing up upside down and backwards. When I quote uᴉoɔʇᴉq it displays properly.

its really hard to understand what your saying
POS is 'permissioned ledgers'
where is the central authority?
who gives permission?

The network effect is a double edged sword that causes this extortion/coercion in a system that isn't permissionless.  In uᴉoɔʇᴉq, you can go straight to the system itself and pluck the money off the tree.  It never ends, you can always do this.  It has removed friction from the economic system by removing the ability of the middle men to insert themselves and extort you.  The fact that it has permanent coin turnover means uᴉoɔʇᴉq is essentially always running a decentralized exchange in the background to allow you to always bypass humans and you will always be paying fair market price.  In permissioned systems, that's not the case.  Most people don't even realize uᴉoɔʇᴉq has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.

Since, like I said, money is a unitary instrument, an engineering problem to create a decentralized price peg so that you can say 1 hat = 1/10th a chicken, the entire purpose of money's existence is to become a monopoly.  If the money is built by design as a permissioned ledger, it's usefulness to any person or nation on earth will be minimal and negative if it was to become a monopoly because it's too wide open to abuse.  It will either not be adopted at all, or scammers will try to force it onto people to extort them.  A permissionless system would have mutual value for all parties involved.

The main reason a country would want to resist a real permissionless currency, is so they can do things like devalue it to raise their exports, thus cheating other nations via currency wars.  There is a Nash equilibrium in every country adopting the permissionless currency to prevent each other from doing this.

In the Austrian school of money, "money" is required to have scarcity, but because money is a unitary instrument, it's also required to have accessibility.  Gold accomplishes this permissionless and unitary system because most any nation can acquire it, even if they have to go straight down a few miles.

When I say, "unitary instrument", it's because you have to have a price peg in which all other objects are pegged to so that you can say "one chicken = 1/10th a hat".  uᴉoɔʇᴉq follows and actually improves upon gold in this case of accessibility.  It can be acquired wherever you want, and the accessibility never stops due to permanent coin turnover via transaction fee block reward.  If there is no accessibility, there can be no unitary price peg, and the entire thing just turns into an extortion scheme, so here we are in this thread.

The way uᴉoɔʇᴉq is designed is honestly somewhat of a work of art by someone with the understanding of a renaissance man.