i could mix btc millions of times.. but when i go to an exchange to get fiat.. and use fiat to buy supplies.. yep fiat traces pop up
i could buy supplies in secret, but its hard to hide a placard if the purpose of a placard is to be seen.. once seen, yep traces pop up

also holding/supplying a placard is not illegal. so trying to phrase it like btc is needed for legal/privacy protections is twisting reality.

using privacy fears of a PUBLIC event is a stupid sales pitch for btc utility

1. a pool can pre validate a bulk tx prior to the block creation..(not relay it so other pools cant pre validate) and then add it to a block.
2. the created block can then be relayed and hold up the other pools validation times as they have to receive and validate before updating utxoset to then create their own next block potential
3. while other pools are delayed the malicious pool can just start their next attempt, having a head start basically
4.thus getting an extra blockheight ahead of the other pools
5. adding 2000 tx's with fee's or just creating an empty block.. the empty block would get solved faster.
6. in a race of 20 pools (5% chance if all pools had equal hash) its more important to chase the block reward of 25 coins rather than risk losing the 25 coins, for a smaller chance of 25.3 coins

would you really mess around for 25.3 but have better chance getting just 25

i find it strange that instead of adding code to limit the risk. some fools just want to say 'people wont do it because fee's' .. the topic creators example shows pools dont care about fee's

also the other point in previous message about quadratics becoming a problem if base block is expanded... exactly. so instead of crippling btc's capacity.. cripple the maxtxsigops instead and allow capacity to grow.
i find it foolish that people think crippling btc's capacity is a good thing. especially when REAL fixes exist

again people spouting out 'trust the hearts and pockets of people to do the right thing'.. to avoid real fixes.. makes btc have security risks and rely on human emotion more then coded rules

last ranting point. dont cal it a theoretical threat when there actually have been blocks in btc created maliciously

if you see different people with the same placards, you need to realise that those making them standardised placards, sell them.. protests have become a business these days.. those selling placards dont make a loss
prime example:

a few things are sure:
no one can predict a storm for october in july.
most chinese know someone with a hd camera and then stream the movie online. dont expect huge 'box office' numbers.

take box office numbers of other movies.
avengers endgame made 800million just in USA. many would think china is 4x population so should make 4x.. but.. infact it made 5x LESS than america

if china could not drum up enough excitement for an action movie, dont expect much for a financial movie.

summary:
topic creator has not done the research to realise that protests of 2-3 months have ended. the government pulled the bill that would have prolonged protests if not pulled.
(protesters have nothing to protest against now.)

basically old news, nothing to see here. plus donations wont help and will be a waste. so double nothing to see here

political protests themselves dont cost anything really just som mouthwash and a clean pair of socks. its just people standing in a group and shouting after all
but the difference between hong kong and other protests, is that hong kongs protest is about extradition which does not affect economic balance. however other protests in the past were about economic balance where bitcoin would have ben a safe harbour asset to hedge against fiats in politicly economic inbalance

again donating just to the protest itself is just suggesting to buy mouthwash for the crowds(a waste basically), as thats mostly all they need. but when peoples retirement/pension plans dilute to near zero and ar facing losing their houses due to political economic policy changes. then people need a currency to escape to that will allow them to keep/save value. before its diluted if kept as their native fiat

doesnt require a hard fork at all(if core implemented/allowed it). but i do like how you are trying to prevent a fix by crying that it will cause disruption.. sorry but it wont, there are many ways to implement it without forking.

1. the protests have been going on since june.. bit late to the scream party
2. today the government is withdrawing a potential bill that if it were not withdrawn would cause more chaos. thus he has now allayed the reason for the protests.. in short they have no reason to protest
3. a protest is just people turning up and shouting... what exactly would be donated.. mouth wash, shoes? hong kong aint that poor
4. trying to use proper political problems as a gimmick for some bitcoin advertising where one person has to convert fiat into btc for like 1 hour which gets converted to another fiat is not good use case of bitcoin. the fee's alone would actually sway people away from using it

but thats the issue. there is no punishment.
if core limited a block to say 500 sigops a tx, then anyone trying to do the quadratic bug wont get their tx accepted, plus it would allow the base legacy block area to increase without the risk.
the reason they cry about not increasing to 2mb is because they dont want the validation delay of quadratics to cause issues.
again reducing sigops per tx fixes it.. and they could have fixed it 4 years ago during the initial scaling debates

also for those discussing the fee element. pools could choose to only include tx's above a certain fee amount even without filing a block. thus forcing wallets when they do thier fee estimations to base it on the calculated averages of previous blocks(of high fees) to cause the cost of a tx to go up. even if blocks are not full. and that goes unpunished

cores "free market" is a security and utility risk. they keep abusing that buzzword purely to sell people onto the idea of using other networks

you need to really do some research before making assumptions.
the validation time for 2000 transactions of one input is NOT the same as 1 transaction of 2000 inputs
you really need to do some research.

what your trying to flip flop about is if someone made an efficient block of one transaction where the transacter wants to use a single address to then have less processing requirements for all inputs... but take off the pink fluffy best case use.. and think of malicious use where someone wanted to create a malicious transaction.
i really find it funny how people avoid talking about the negatives and try to push a super pro use case to hide the negative.. its not helpful.
bitcoin security should be higher priority than dev hugging.


ok so your saying 1mb legacy 3mb witness.. ok well imagine 7mb witness with 1mb legacy.. oh look. no extra capacity boost, just room for more lumpy bloated scripts.
but when you expand the legacy 1mb to 2mb it actually does boost the tx capacity..
but now imagine a tx with twice the sigops limit.. twice the problem because it does increase transaction capacity(the thing people want) but also causes issues. which can be fixed and should have been fixed ages ago by just limiting tx sigops.

basically ask yourself WHO THE F**K deserves to have a whole block to themselves.. bitcoin is meant to be a international payment system for people, not person. so letting just 1 person get a block to themselves and have the ability to be malicious with that. is foolish

just like brewmaster should, can you both stop throwing out the pink glitter best case scenario of utopian use, and try to think about things from malicious user ability risk.

thinking that bitcoin should stay at 1mb legacy is stupid. 1mb is not practical for an international payment system. the problem is not the 1mb but how the space is used. reducing the sigops reduces the bottleneck risk, which allows more expansion

pre-empting the glitter rebuttals.
1. dont reply with fluffy glitter best case scenario
2. dont reply with ignorance of quadratics issue
3. dont reply with assuming malicious people will use segwit(as a way to hide the issue)
4. dont reply that 1mb should remain as it would benefit miners, it doesnt..(as a way to hide the issue)
5. miners do not care about fee's. thy just care about having fast validation speeds so that when they form a block they can include transactions to then b the quickest at solving a block. no fee games would sway a pool to want to lose speed to win a block reward.
6. dont even try to presume pools wont include malicious transactions due to points 5 rational.. this very thread proves that a pool HAS included a transaction, with no fee that was just 1 transaction(blockreward is separate)
7.assume worse case scenario possibilities and risks. again as point 1&2 suggests dont try twisting rebuttals to advertise to pian best case scenarios.. truly think about the risks
8. do your research

i raised this issue ages ago. but core devs dont think its a problem

imagine it though.
someone is able to fill a block with just 1 transaction. secondly they could use the quadratic signature bug to make full nodes take longer to validate. thus cause network bottlenecks.

segwit HAS NOT fixed this because malicious users wanting to make a single tx still can.

core devs have refused to drop the sigops per tx, thus not reduce the risk. they foolishly say they trust the open freemarket model of trust that people simply wont do things to harm the network (bad security mindset)
 
some devs have foolishly thought to instead sooner or later, drop legacy validation, trying to force people into using segwit.(facepalm)

but as i said the cure is easy. reduce the sigops per tx,which stops people filling a block so easily

nope
craig made a txt file of public keys and got dave to notarize them as authentic (no private key verification by the way) and this formed the tulip trust.

the tulip trust was then used to attempt to scam the australian government out of tax stuff. which is where craig fled to the UK.
craig also scammed some shareholders out of investments by liquidating his company by blaming the australian tax office for not paying out.

craig wright was in legal troubles from 2013. doxxd himself to media in 2015 hoping the community would come to his aid(obviously didnt) and then he went on a deeper flip flop mission in 2016.

it was not a DK 'introducing' CSW. but a CSW announcing DK involvement as part of the SN scam, outing DK as a partner to try to add substance to the lies because at the time CSW didnt seem smart enough to have figured out what bitcoin was really about so needed to name a computer forensics specialist to up his own rep as a partner.

DK did not 'introduce' CSW. nor did GA

heres some tips. bch and bsc are not btc. so if csw was satoshi. then csw could easily 'spend' the early mined coins of the blockchain of bch and bsv as those public/private keys are the same for the chains but are not part of the shoddy trust 'holdings' known as tulip

1. if you go to a system that a individual block is secured by a single users crappy computer for under $100... then someone else will 51% attack with a $200 computer.

2. no matter what algo you think of, people will always find a way to maximise their potential. even PoS sees people pooling funds together so that they are picked more often to hash a block than those with small stake. for instance if it was proof of hard drive, people will just open a warehouse full of hardrives.

3. i understand that many hobbyists got informd they can receive 50btc using just their laptop. but that salespitch is outdated and redundant 9 years ago. its like thinking you can still get rich gold mining by using a pickaxe. sorry those days have gone.
trying to devolve the bitcoin security just so lazy people can get rich for free is not what bitcoin is about. bitcoin is about security of wealth not

in short i would hate to have a financial system thats hash is only secured by the strength of a single CPU's work

i think the niche btc is currently missing is the gaming/app market. by this i mean using btc for ingame currency just like facebook done with credits but hopes to do with libra.

imagine having youtube where advertisers buy credit in btc and streamers get paid for thier video's in btc.
i know people will scream the blockchain wont cope. but this is not microtransactions per minute. but monthly deposit and withdrawal where the service is the custodian

i find it strange for bitcoin devs to advertise btc for microtransactions, but then say it cant cope at doing things like paying youtube broadcasters by the minute... the strange part is that youtube themslves dont even pay their broadcasters per minute anyway.

other idea's are the loyalty cards /gift cards. where instead of buying individual coffee's you buy a months worth in one go

a few fools on the first page think KYC is not necessary and BS.
here is the problem they do not accept.

open node exchanges btc for fiat.. and because of fiat, fiat rules then apply to the business and so the business needs to comply with those fiat rules
if one half of business is btc and other half is fiat.. you CANNOT just pretend the fiat rules dont apply because half the business is another currency.

but if a business is 100% btc and never touches fiat.. then be very very cautious if they are asking for ID

Doomad you find it 'difficult to tell' you PRESUME its malicious and it looks to you to be propaganda.. but your attitude and presumptions just show you have not done the research to actually know. instead you just jump on the defense wagon of devs' without checking what they got up to.

if you really want to rebutt something, include some code, stats, data. if al you can quote is yourself quoting yourself quoting yourself saying "wrong because idiot" it makes you look more of the idiot than the person your accusing.

so please take the advice and do some research

it was actually nick szabo trace mayer that introduced wright.
well before the media drama of the australian tax fraud stuff happened wright(then a stranger to the community)
made a remote videocall(skype).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE
wright then doxxed himself to press to raise his profile and then moved to the uk to start the satoshi fraud.. it was not until he was in the uk did the gavin/ matonis stuff occur


i thought the same thing. that it was craigs plan win or lose it would be used somehow to his benefit. but i need to read a court transcript to know more as media currently reads it as craig owing 50% of any coin mined before 2014 rather than a specific list of source

are you that ignorant?
you assume that it cost alot to run a full node.
seriously, current btc can run on a raspberry pi which by default is MULTIPLE times worse than an AVERAGE desktop/laptop

this means that upgrading the network means people do not need to buy expensive equipment
people on average upgrade their computer every 2-5 years anyway... even without thinking about bitcoin.

thus just using recent generation computers and continuing normal upgrade trends, people will not see any extra expense that they would not have paid otherwise.

but i do feel sorry for you if you are still using a computer from 2009(or older). and refusing to upgrade, but if your having issues, with a slow computer.. maybe it is time you upgrade anyway.
if your computer freezes playing solitaire or opening a web browser. its time to upgrade


since 2017 btc has expanded by ~70gb a year. thats only 140gb-350gb (2-5 year respectively)
people can get 4tb hard drives these days
this is ~50 years current rules
this is ~25 years legacy 2mb
this is ~12 years legacy 4mb
this is ~6 years legacy 8mb

but here is another point. the home userbase do not need to know personally that every transaction verifies. all they care about is the ones involving them. so while home userbase will end up just using custodial services and side/alt networks(ln) which would be compatible with phone apps so they dont need to lug around a desktop/laptop to 'buy coffee'. it the merchants that do actually need to verify multiple transactions and have more desire to secure their funds, who will want to be full nodes. so its the merchant userbase that will be the main full node users.

dont believe me.. check it out. coinbase has millions of user accounts (millions of home users). yet 10k full nodes. this shows home users dont want or care to be full nodes

if a business doesnt have a computer.. then the business wont be successful in doing many things, like modern accounting, stock control. staff wages, customer relations/complaints.
so please dont try saying btc shouldnt evolve 'because of home users' when your not even taking into account real live situations, facts and stats

but if you want to remain in the myth that all home users should be full nodes then you have to accept if all million+ home users were full nodes right now. to propogate the latest block to all users (without changing blocksize) would take longer.

dont believe me. well find 3 friends and play 'pass the parcel' count how long it takes for the parcel to get to you. then get 3000 friends. play again. and count.
without needing to know the length of time to verify the person is holding the parcel. just passing it along takes longer.
think about it

also if you still want to argue that home users cant cope with btc. here is some tips:
1. your saying btc is broken and not viable (anti-btc to promote another network(ln))
2. go tell youtube, twitch, torrent users that the internet is broke and no one can up/download
3. go tell online gamers that they cant install large games and cant then play them because the internet is broke

or admit that the internet is fast, computers are capable and it does not require 'super computers'

that supercomputer requirement myth has been debunked ages ago. even by some of the core devs. so just drop that myth

alice only has $70,, and those are locked to carol and bob,,,, thus nothing spare to open with frank in LN
imagine it. trying to make a payment and you get a message "sorry cant mak payment please deposit more"
would you call that a good payment system

the example illustration is just a network of 6 nodes. imagine a million nodes, but where users only have 3-5 channels each.
if you run the scenario you will see each extra node routr you have to hop through makes the chances of success worse

by the way if alice did find more funds to deposit. theres still no guarantee alice can pay the full amount to frank as another node might route through alice to pay frank.

imagine it alice makes a alice-frank channel.. but then carol does a carol-alice-frank for upto 3 coins spending all of alices coins

also do you really want to stay awake 24/7 to ensure bob or carol or their counterparts dont route through you. do you then want to hand control to a watchtower(paypal2.0) which can authorise/decline payments while you sleep

its stuff like this that makes me call LN a independant network service for multiple cryptocurrncies including btc
and not
bitcoin layer 2
LN tarnishes the security and trust that btc had for years so i avoid trying to pretend LN is a bitcoin thing

to do with paypal example.. WTF you talking about 'fees'.. my example had nothing to do with fee's it was just about physical ability to send a payment.

imagine you were alice and had $70(7 beads in total).. get told you need to split it up to get a chance to spend it. then get told your not going to be able to spend it all (only send frank $20). and then told that others can route through you messing up your channel balance

but if you want to talk about fee's. here goes
if people start raising fee's to scare people from routing via them, guess what.. there will be less routes. less chance of a successful payment

the liquidity issue is a major thing.
nothing to do with fee's alone. but separately the fee scare makes routing even harder