as for ETF and Carltons debate about transaction size

bech32 uses MORE bytes
also nested segwit is also bigger
even funnier part is segwits only real purpose is for a LN gateway which requires bytes for a lock and multisig meaning when segwit does get real active for its true purpose the bytes per transaction will be higher

P.S
there are stupid websites that push the positive propaganda of segwit.. like this one
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/segwit/
celebrating how bitcoin has a 2mb block.. but look closely at the image... number of transactions: 225 (facepalm)

and good old doomad. running out of technical rebuttles so resorts to personal attacks.. how obvious
also trying to make out that i am part of bch team is him scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

if only he knew more about bitcoin and LN and not so much caring for his own greed, would doomad be singing a different song
by the way. devs do ridicule me. until they realise fixing bitcoin means more then protecting their own reputation. the ridicules end up just being about how i inform the community of flaws rather than be about the flaws. yea i dont spoon feed all details but for good reason. if those who rebuttle cant work it out, its their loss

as shown by doomads link. the devs had to do a workaround for segwit when i started mentioning its flaws in 2015/6.
same with segwits noinput. i mentioned it last year and suddenly they decide after introducing it to then not make it a public release and even a year later they still cant figure out a workaround for it. (but they still want to have it, otherwise they would have dropped it)
seems that doomad and devs have things in common. care more about reputation than bitcoin issues

some moral following devs have also highlighted the flaws.. you seem to be someone that wants things to break and then say "oh well X did say it was an experiment"

you love the idea of getting people off the network, you love the idea of increased fee's to deter usage, you love the idea of promoting positives to get newb's in. but then lack care about what happens when users actually want to use it

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

it appears you are more so the "scum" as you have quite openly shown how much you dont want people to use bitcoin as a currency

good luck with your greedy self indulgent idea's of how you wish bitcoin to be bypassed and users pushed towards other networks. but even with me wishing you luck, im afraid to tell you that your not going to get rich via your LN promoting and utility

1. july 2018 (14 months ago) devs introduced the new feature which they said would be included in the next segwit script update
2. devs were actually playing around with it meaning those with applications that had it in could use it.
3. the words i used were not 'publicly activated feature'
4. the words i used were "introduced".. which is the case
5. as shown by many quotes i could offer you, including one example i put into previous post to windfury. i have actually been telling people about no input since last year. shame you couldnt pick up on the subtly too
6. no input is both a sighash and opcode. if you dont think its a sighash then maybe you should review the bip which literally calls it SIGHASH_NOINPUT
7. you can do all you want trying to insult a forum username by attacking the personality. but if you do your research you will end up agreeing with the stuff i mention. (once you wipe away your 'fluffy cloud only mention positives' mindset)

people on this forum dont want to know only the fluffy positive propaganda which they will get from adverts and people promoting bitcoin. people want the real information which includes the negative.. remember to be on this forum they must have already heard of bitcoin. so there is no need to be trying to positively sell people on the fluffy cloud features. because they have already been introduced.. instead they want proper and real information

instead of trying to hide the negatives.. you should also be highlighting them.
a great currency is one that recognises its flaws and fixes them. not works around/hides them
if you actually cared for bitcoin then you would have the old mindset of the original devs that actually wanted people to try to find the flaws and try to break bitcoin so that bugs can be fixed.

P.S segwit is not a bugfix. its a gateway tool for another network

i think the subtly game is up due to pooya revealing NO input.. if you didnt get the hint when i was being subtle about offering no input.. maybe you just didnt get the hint

i literally in several topics told people including yourself i was both being subtle.. and i was offering them NO_INPUT

just because you didnt get it, doesnt mean i didnt "show anything/offer" and doesnt mean "there's nothing"

but now its been presented to you clearly. i hope you actually do some research on the matter. and i mean read code and documentation. not just get propaganda fluffy cloud speaches from friends that cover up the true risks.

EG doomad saying he loves schnorr and soft forks. which shows he has not looked into the risks and is just fluffy clouding

which is a trojan horse. imagine the blockstream/barrysilbert team (many exchanges, merchants and devs that made up the majority of the NYA agreement) decided to add a new script that allowed any input to be added even if the signature didnt link to the input (eg i put doomads utxo's into a tx to me, without the signature needing to prove im doomad's utxo owner).

there are many many other dangerous implementations that can be added and by having its as 'soft fork' (no consensus required) means that there is no way to prevent it.

no input does malleate the tx hash
the tx hash is created by hashing a complete tx. and as you yourself said no input can alter a input after its been written

the point being if i was using no-input, i made a tx and then copied the tx hash to then monitor the blockchain for broadcasts. whomever gets the tx next  could then add more inputs, take away inputs. which would alter the tx hash.

what no-input does is allow alterations of inputs without needing to change the signature script. its the signature that dos not alter. but the tx hash does.. which is what malleability is all about. altering the tx hash to broadcast a tx using an altered hash so someone monitoring a specific hash wont see it.

dang you really are believing the propaganda.
segwit does not have lower transaction BYTE hard drive storage size. it has UNCOUNTED size which they refer to as Virtual byte. these virtual bytes are used to make all the weight of a block appear as 1mb to not break the now outdated1mb rule

but when it comes to WEIGHT which does account for actual bytes. segwit tx actually uses more bytes compared to a legacy tx of same input/output count

maybe best to learn about segwit and how it mis-counts bytes


same could be said about the other way, using satoshi's instead of cents. less people are transacting as often because the cost is so high

the grand debate of bitcoins purpose WAS about a open currency without borders. yet the tx fee of bitcoin has ruled out utility to many countries of unbanked people

i am british but i travel alot. and while i see americans literally wanting to orgasm at the desire of a $20 tx fee to co-erse people over to LN so the west can make income as fee grabbing hubs, watchtowers, factories and routers. but the 3rd world countries are literally ignoring bitcoin because its been outpriced and made only fit for what they call the 'wall street crowd'

i have been subtle to tell some that i will offer them no input into their research of discovering which opcode will introduce malleability into segwit

if you cant figure it out, maybe you need to do more research

still thinking bitcoin cant scale is like kodak thinking digital photography wont succeed because of capacities of the time

the old debates about bytes has been busted so many times. we are in 2019 not 1994. we have fibre/5g internet not dial up. 4tb hard drives are under $£100

what can be optimised is not just the "size" which many fools think is the only debate. but also how the wallet apps load up.
EG the main complaint about "size" is not actually the size, its the delay at first loadup to then have a usable program. there are many ways to change it so people can be sending out transactions within seconds of opening the wallet instead of days/weeks.
emphasis: that is the main complaint


but concentrating just on segwit.. lets list what segwit promised and if it has/hasnt achieved it
1. better transaction capacity: no
    bytes per transaction has got worse since segwit.
    segwit is actually more bloaty.
    even with a 1.3x byte growth compared to ~2015 stats the tx count has not risen by 1.3x

2. fee efficiency: no
    fee's in 2015 where pennies with a top price of 25cents before users complained. fees now are more by averaging 25c

3. malleability: no
    segwit has not solved malleability for legacy
    devs want to introduce new opcodes to segwit that reintroduce malleability into segwit

the only 'thing' that segwit is useful for is being a gateway format for alternative networks like LN and sidechains, but as we all know LN and sidechains are not bitcoin

after reading the previous poster i have to laugh.
too much attention is being put on things leading to moving people offchain rather than things that can optimise BITCOIN

as the previous posters shows, he seems he is stuck on the blocksize debate. but avoids the increase capacity debate.
segwit has not increased capacity. its just allowed more bloated tx's to be hidden away. yet hard drives still fill faster.

if only he could show a single day that bitcoin achieved over 600k transactions (7tx/s that was signified in early bitcoin days) then those segwit lovers can truly say segwit has achieved atleast one of its promises

p.s segwit lovers are only segwit lovers for hopes of thm being LN watchtower/factory operators to earn some income. what they dont realise is they will only earn enough to eat chicken nuggets for christmas, yet they still dont care about the wider communities utility needs of bitcoin

lol here we go again. good old doomad, windfury and carlton thinking if they pretend segwit got activated due to true consensus that the community will suddenly want to use it

sorry guys but pushing people off the network to fake a count is not true consensus. and now its activated i dont see 95% of UTXO's being segwit bc1q addresses or 3 addresses.. so it looks like the community are not that interested in it, even after 2 years of oppertunity to convert.

even funnier is that sipa (pieter wuille) still asks for donations using legacy addresses
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ (bottom right)

as you can see, 2 years after his project programmed got activated.. has hasnt converted
 guess he dont trust the address format just yet


but yea continue on with pretending the whole community wanted it. while the real community now 4 years on still waits for bitcoin to offer what it used to offer 2009-2015.

P.S dont expect LN to be consumer ready for another few years so please stop harping on that LN is the 'solution' to bitcoin issues

bitcoin dos have more value than just what people price it at.
bitcoin has a purpose/function. which is where put against other coins that are NOT accepted by merchants makes bitcoin more valuable.
also the acquisition cost of bitcoin (mining) which adds value to it, is more expensive than other coins(pos)
EG if gold could be acquired by anyone with a kitchen spoon and a coffee filter in their own back yard, gold would sell for $1 not $1k

the difference between gold and bitcoin is the function/purpose. they both have it, but bitcoin has a risk of being replaced far more than gold.
gold features are unique to gold, yet bitcoins features can be emulated

that said companies and products can b emulated too, yet stocks and shares have been good investments

§

i thought this looked a little better than a Ş with a tail

(im no graphic designer so treat this as novice attempt of demo image)

summary...
seems someone wants to go pos so they can have their cake and eat it

in the end pos advocates end up revealing their motives are about wanting rewards without any costs
using boring arguments which "economically" is empty of validity

p.s its obvious when the title is "economical" not "security" as its bases for prefering pos

sounds more like hal finneys experience. not satoshi's.. i guess CSW is reading the wrong quotes and forgetting who he is suppose to pretend to be

yep doomad is trolling
even he knows that luke JR invented the code for the mandatory split crap MONTHS before bitcoin cash was even a brainfart

bch was not created to contend against core as a take over. whereby core had to react
bch was a knee-jerk reaction to cores aparthied attempt on the community.
but anyways core on august 1st only accepted blocks of a certain category that means it changed direction to what was acceptable the day before (so core did split/change direction) and as doomad confirms in his own insulting manner bch hours later went in their direction too as a reaction to no longer being part of the core network (hint if core didnt do the mandated crap then ver would have still been part of core network and there would have been orphan drama)

either way bch is just another alt and used as just a distraction to avoid talking about btc's issues

the main assumption is that everytime he debugged his client and updated it, it created a new wallets/files and be didnt back up the previous
take this quote that shows early versions needed backing up entire folders.
imagine backing up a folder every time you edited a line of code


satoshi's 'stash' were 50 coins per address which if 1mill coins was accurate would be 20,000 addresses, in numerous folders, if he did backup

remember from january 2009-mid 2010 bitcoin had no value in the real world. it was just a experiment back then so there was no value in keeping the private keys. assumptions were that after a few months of bug fixing everything would be reset and born again. but too many joind and it instead just continued to live and it wasnt until 2010 before h made it simple to backup

so winter 2015 core team announced segwit as a promotion of fee discounts of upto 4x
fee's at the time were only a few pennies and people were getting angry when fee's went up to $0.20
...
4 years later.. 2019. core still are dictating the rules and yet the community are still waiting for a fee fix...
yea... sticking to one team that had 4 years really worked(sarcasm)

if you knew how consensus worked in its truest form(not cores b*starded version) by learning about the byzantine generals theory. you would realise that having multiple teams where they could all propose their own idea's and then gradually compromise down to a single idea everyone agree's on. (such as an earlier 2015 compromise that occurred before core stepped back and went in their own roadmap direction).
under a true consensus mechanism of community rather than dictator 'reference' clients. the community could move forward with new innovations faster than the 4 year stagnation without fix thus far.

im still hoarding from 2012.
also imagine the 'value' as 2 layers.
for instance gold costs ~$900 to mine and has a $300 speculation layer totaling $1200

bitcoin summer 2018 had a mining cost ~$5800 and hit the price tip of $20k = $14k speculation before it wore out
2019 bitcoins mining cost has only just got back to the ~$5800 range after winters $3500. so why would speculation suddenly be $34k to make the price $40k. many people would ware out their buying power way before that.

now then. IF mining cost was ~$12k then people might have a point, but mining costs underlying value is back at old levels.. not new levels

again imagine it like a car. you cant just say that a car can drive another 150miles simple because you seen it drive 150 yesterday, without knowing anything about the condition of the car, fuel tank or driver. as yesterdays conditions are not the sam as todays
hint there is only so much fuel a car can hold
hint there is only so many buyers before they all bought up.
nothing is infinite and the future does not copy the past

lol gotta love the trend anals and their short term drawing of lines on charts without thinking about what actually makes up a market

its like saying OMG a car just drove 150 miles so its possible to drive another 150 miles without stopping... totally neglecting there is a natural limit such as driver needing to rest or car fuel tank getting low.

not everything is a constant continuance to infinity, and speculating on a constant move forward purely on the past recent movement is naive.

imagine saying the same thing about december 2017 OMG it reached 20k since november so it can get to 40k by january.. and then... it didnt...

if these trend anals could actually base the reason for the rise on something sustainable, beyond just a line drawn on a chart, then that would be worth a discussion

gotta love the core dev defenders. look at the insults they fly out with and the social memes they use. yet still afraid to actually do some proper research on data and stats.

kinda gets boring that they waste their time on defending devs instead of caring about the network/utility of bitcoin.
but anyway ill let them continue with thier social drama games because it seems its thier only entertainment in life.

but to others that actually care about data/protocol/function of the network.
theres plenty of it so have fun researching the data and try to stay away from reddit or you will just end up looking like drama queens like a few certain people

anyway v0x20000002 is enough of a first stepping stone of research for those that actually do care about actual order of events