actually bitmain are known as the pool that prefers to 'empty block'.
its other pools that accept transactions from mixers that are 'spammy' and if you do some research you will see a few core devs that are highly motivated and involved in the mixer industry

1. i dont want to be one of the most trusted people. i just want to counter the propaganda so that people can think independently and trust their own opinions/do their own research by having a valid counter argument to the lame stuff some spew out

2. comparing bitcoins ethos/purpose of 2009 to bitcoins ethos/purpose of 2019 things have changed dramatically. the devs went full on wild west with fee management rather than act like devs and code something. purely to then use the wild west as a reason to then say bitcoin is failing so they could promote their VC invested other networks for commercial gain.

3. pools are limited to what they can actually do. too much propaganda is placed on pools in regards to how deadly a 51% attack would be, however it wouldnt change rules, it would just change what transactions were confirmed vs unconfirmed in a chain re-org.

4. that said pools could decide to not include certain transactions as a boycott such as
avoid the discounted segwit transactions(false discount as its actually legacy=4x not segwit=/4)
avoid transactions that have less than 6 confirms
avoid transactions over $2
and so on.
the only problem is that there are over 20 pools. so while one pool might implement an initiative to try to change users fee habits. it would only affect 5-15% of blocks depending on how popular the pool is at mining

exchanges and fee's are non issue.
people can arbitrage in many ways.

im thinking the user of 'badDecker' 2013 is not todays' badDecker as the opinion of todays badDecker does not appear to be one of a legendary user of 6 years. did you recently buy the username by any chance?

anyways.
a functional fee formulae that is fair for everyone, is not just a first in-first confirm. as people will just tweak their time stamps to favour one tx over another.

a favourable fee mechanism is one where if a tx only has 1 confirm it will pay more than a tx of say 144 confirms(1day)
thus those spamming the blockchain every block pay the most and those spending just once a day dont pay a premium and by where one does not impact the other.(no one is anylonger trying to fight each other/outbid each other)

this can be further utilised by people putting a lock on funds for x confirms if they want to broadcast but dont need next block priority. thus they can control priority and gain favourable fees the longer they allow a tx to wait.
those who really demand to spam every 10 minutes for whatever reason can then learn to do other ways to move funds without delays/costs. such as using niche networks like stable coins or LN for favourable fee's. or mov funds using exchanges internal resrve swaps thus helping everyone out

the fee's were not a problem
day traders know how to arbitrage smartly without the worry of blockchain delays/fee's

if you actually look at the underlying data the FOMO of late 2017 was new futures contracts due to VC investment in devs due to the devs reaching their goal of activating segwit.
this FOMO was tooo speculative and was 3-4x above 'good value' so wouldnt have survived long, hense topping out at $20k

if you think that speculation has a endless rise and you think that btc could have gone to $1m then youdont understand the markets. or stats. or speculation.

lastly. miners dont raise the fee's. the fee's are created by the user signing a transaction at a fee that the wallet has suggested
again due to a lack of actual coded fe formulae. users are just wild west auction bidding and fighting each other thinking if they pay just $1 more they get in faster. but then 5000 other users think the same. thus the price ends up 5000x more than usual. due to users having to rely on 'estimate' sites and wallets.
again its the users that sign how much they want to pay. if all users decided as a consensus to nevr pay more than 25cents. then the fee's will never go over 25cents

few points for people to think about
1. there are now millions of bitcoiners.. but only hundred(s) attend conferences so technically there is already a 99% boycott

2. again CSW doesnt get rich from conferences. its just used as his acting stage like a karaoke night. people turn up just to see the act

3. initial revelations before CSW changed his story, was that CSW creatd a txt file of public keys and got dave K to validate that the public keys held value, then dave K notarised his observations. initial revelations were not that dave k mined bitcoin and put them into a trust that then CSW hid away. but that dave K simply notarised some public keys

4.going through all the different stories and changes csw has attempted. i simply believe that CSW hired Ira K to file a suit, not to get CSW into trouble, but to secretly work together to try to get a judge to claim that atleast one of them by law owns 1m btc hoping a judge wouldnt ask for proof butjust judge ira or csw as the legal owner. thus (foolishly) making the trust look legal and valid to use the verdict to quash csw legal battle with aussie government(separate case)

anyways. CSW cant prove ownership of say 200,000 addresses of 50btc (the original 'i own tulip trust of satoshi's coins)
anyways. CSW cant prove ownership of say less addresses of thousands of btc (the more recent 'i own tulip trust' of mtgox coins)
so things wont go well for csw...... as long as the court case actually goes through with demanding proof of signature of addresses.. rather than just say ira owns (fake trust) if csw cant prove it

the dec 2017 $20k was not a "norm"
it was not a price that bitcoin was hanging around in a stable place and then suddenly tanked
the $20k itself was the fluke and the CORRECTION down to above $5800 was just that, a correction.

the spring summer 2018 seen the price stabilise over $5800. and that was a healthy price due to the mining costs of hardware/electric vs the blockreward.

then by october next gen asics were released making it cheaper to mine. and so made it able for the market to sell down and still profit. which is what occured in november 2018.(along with some 'futures options' closing too)

the price movements are due to blockrewards and markets. not the fee's

what you have to realise is mining pools do not care about transaction fee's right now.
the block reward for 2018 was
~$44k(12.5@3500) -> $250k(12.5@20000)
pools dont want to waste time selectively choosing transactions where the 'bonus' of fee's actually costs them time which could mean they dont even win the blockreward let alone the fee bonus.

also its not the pools that are to blame for the fee's... pools dont write code that becomes bitcoins protocol, they didnt make the rules or make the lack of rules. it was the bitcoin core devs that decided on the uncontrolled wild west auction market of fee's rather than a structured fee formulae

[/quote]

you cant find blockchain data? ..... ok take a step away from the keyboard until you can atleast find the basics


research v0x20000002 you might learn something

anyway. many people are crying that bitcoin is not solely owned in full by core.... well keep crying, no one should own the brand bitcoin. if you want to cry. go cry that USA dont solely own the dollar

aeroplanes are not taxed on the gallons of kerosene.
passengers dont pay an extra separate fee

the ticket prices increase to cover extra costs incurred by the aviation industry
and one example of the 'tax'  is the corsia agreement

in the uk without things actually being a 'tax'(vat) we define them as a tax if the price has increased due to government policy.
EG sugary drinks have increased in price. not due to VAT.. but due to a 'sugar tax'
plastic shopping carrier bags are now 5p/10p.. w call that a tax
so excuse me if you took the word 'tax' too literal, thinking it meant vat. but any price increase due to government policy directly or indirectly we consider a 'tax'

..
as for atmosfair wasting money making a hotel/motel/lodge thing rather than reducing co2 via tree planting or other environmental methods of co2 absorbtion
https://www.atmosfair.de/en/die-letzte-und-klimafreundlichste-lodge-des-climate-treks-in-nepal-oeffnet-ihre-pforten/

as for bitcoins co2 reduction.
compare today to 2012's GPU era. imagine if ASICS nevr got invented and we were at 50exa via GPU's
the crypto industry IS ALREADY dealing with the co2 issue.
first moving from CPU to GPU in 2010. then moving from GPU to asic in 2013..
the thing is that debates like climate change/co2 and even war on drugs is they are designed to be a never ending battleground used as an excuse to already/eventually introduce government controls.
take war on drugs. first cannabis, that got legalised, then cocaine, that then become less life threatening due to 'narcan' so now we are hearing everywhere about fentanyl... its just a debate that has no end as even if efforts are being made. goalposts are moved to just continue the battle

in short. even if we moved out bitcoins intrinsic valu of PoW costs and made bitcoins value pure speculation with zero underlying cost of production (imagine scenario of gold being mined for zero cost). then bitcoins value would decline. but not only that the co2 battle would just move onto counting the distributed ledger costs per full node, thus no end to the debate

1. people already pay more for aeroplane tickets due to increased 'taxes' due to climate taxes
2. donating funds to atmosfair.?!? did you even see what they bought with it. they made a motel/youth hostal.
seriously. if they wanna help the co2 'offset' thy should be planting rainforests or solar farms. not doubling their money making motels

analogy
who cares about the canadian dollar. everyone just thinks about the us dollar

raw dog thinking electricity is generated by rubbing 2 raw lumps of coal together and blowing the carbon dust into the air

by the way the 45twh is based on if the network was hashing at a constant 50exahash
only problem is that winter 18-19 the hashrate was down at 35exa.. meaning the twh would be much lower.

also new asics use less electric this year for the same exa.. so again the twh used is less than 45twh

but atleast at the exaggerated numbers of that article..
bitcoin uses similar electric to ONE CITY (Las vegas)
bitcoin uses less electric than keeping bottles of pepsi chilled

just to show how naive and outdated/innaccurate the articles 'research is'.. here is a quote from the source report

"but there is a wide scale ranging from students who do not pay for their electricity (some of whom applied to support this research)16 to gamers who leverage their graphics cards whenever they are not playing (as reflected in Nvidia’s volatile sales allocated to crypto"

P.S. even back in 2011-2013 days of GPU mining. EVERYONE knew never to buy Nvidia... if people were not mining with ATI then they might aswell not bother

if you cant find th bitcoin blockchain data. if you cant find luke Jr's mandatory code for august 1st
if you cant see that v0x20000002 activated hours BEFORE cash even made a block...
then thats your problem

but hey all you care about is social drama and memes... maybe best you spend some time learning code, learning stats if you really wanna get involved in any serious conversations

i never even used a BCH wallet, nor have i deposited any bch into an exchange. because i dont care about it

the stupid thing is that you think because i dont kiss core devs ass that you think it means im a bch guy.

no im a bitcoin NETWORK guy that cares about code and features not the devs.
there is no point kissing a devs ass, no point defending a dev.
they are temporary entities and their loyalty follows the VC money they earned and now have to stifle bitcoin just to create alternate networks like LN as a means of VC' s to make ROI on the investment.

if you only care about kissing a dev. then maybe its you that should sell ur coins

read the blockchain data. check out the blockheights and time stamps. check out luke jr's code.

but naw. you dont think thats "techy" do you?
instead you think quoting human social drama is "techy"
(facepalm)

luke JR wanted a soft fork with his november 2016 release hoping for a christmas 2016 activation.
but even by spring 2017 it sat at only 35% flag...
so luke went on his mandatory controversial fork attempt which he mislead by pretending it was a softfork.
gmax happily calls it a bilateral split. and theres enough quotes on this forum that shows gmax loves thee buzzword 'bilateral'

but the funny part. luke wants to deny anything happened on august 1st.. truly funny.

it gets very obvious who the ones are that prefer to hug a dev, rather than think about code/features of a network

go check the blockchain data and then check the code wrote by luke JR
what you will notice is that bch didnt even exist for hours AFTER core done their controversial fork. thus bch was not the cause but the reaction to an earlier cause.

blockchain timestamps dont lie

oh and luke wanted soft upgrade in 2015-16. but that failed. what occurred in august 2017 was not soft.
he can name a spade a shovel but the controversy and mandated apartheid tactics that happened shows it was hard

he and samson mow can wear a hat that says that they are janitors.. doesnt make it so.
truly gotta laugh at lukes lies about his lack of involvement in things/ inability to do things. and yet his linked in profile show's his ego showing off(while still misleading) his involvement

it is blockchain. (a block of data where an identifier is hashed from the data. and that identifier is put into the next block to chain them together.

the difference between say facebook credits and libra from a user prospective is negligible/unnoticeable.
however from facebooks internal infrastructure, by having say 10 distributed nodes across its international head quarters facebook gets a secure database without needing large server farms, without teams of IT staff monitoring data integrity, without auditors without security guards ..

and thats pretty much it

many already avoid CSW for good reason.
but CSW dos not make money from conferences, most the time its just a break even to the cost of travel. he just uses the conference venues as his platform for his mouth to have an excuse to open and sounds to come out.

his income is from private investment. inventing companies which supposedly have assets that he then sells.
and also to note he doesnt make income from his altcoin. he is only using the altcoin as his publicity stunt to pretend thats where his funds are coming from so people dont look into his private businesses of scammery

if you really want to hurt him bad. investigate and report his companies

ever since making the publickey.txt file notarised and treated as collateral for a trust(tulip). he thinks he can get away with creating collateral out of nothing and selling it on.

so if you want to hurt his pocketbook. go for his fake companies.
if you want to go for his ego and lying twitches of his jawbone then yes get him ousted from conferences via sponsors/advertisers not wanting him

what people do not realise is this.

1. banks are not the government, they are businesses
2. governments make banks notes for pennies and banks buy the bank notes at face value which puts funds into the treasury. without bank notes the treasury gets less. meaning the treasury will need to offset this via tax increases.
3. banks create value digitally by getting people to sign mortgage/credit agreements.
4. banks want to continue creating value but at less cost to themselves. and at an increased cost to taxpayers and bank users

the advantage crypto has for banks is that the banks can cut staff, shut local bank branches and not have to have large server farms.. but none of this benefits or changes the bank customers experience of banking (take LN as an example, require co-authorisation and opening hours)

seems "figmentofmyass" is as fifth elements quotes him ''super green"

1. i am not a bigblocker(gigabyte by midnight). i am infact informing you of many ways in which more tx's can be performed without needing to "big block"

2. the august 2017 was not a bitcoin cash hard fork.. even you slipped up and admitted that in the very next sentance..
"the miners quickly activated segwit under threat from the UASF."
UASF was not actually a SF. that was the spade calling itself a shovel.

i have no clue why you keep trying to make things sound like bitcoin cash initiated x,y,z.. seems your more intersted in the propaganda politics than BITCOINS FEATURES being stifled.

3. segwit has not solved the scaling problem.. take away the miscount wishy washy code. and actually look at real hard drive bytes per tx. (not the washy vbytes) and you will see segwit has not scaled a dang thing
real hard drive space, real transaction counts. do the math

4. your link.. pfft
malleation not fixed
linear scaling not fixed
reducing UTXO growth not fixed

here is the ultimate funny. segwits sole purpose is a gateway format for LN.
LN requires locking funds. and splitting them up over many 'channels'(addresses)
this actually causes more UTXO's AND those UTXO's being locked and unspendable for longer.

try to run scenarios and use things and check stats. try to avoid promotionally written material made to only suggest half promised benefits. look for the issues. they are not hard to find.

P.S
if segwit is so great and perfect, why does the segwit master himself pieter wuille avoid asking for donations using segwit. why is he only advertising legacy addresses.
bitcoin.sipa.be    bottom right
Tips and donations: 1NrohbDoPkARCGdjvtnXbwFLwoBH86pskX

why did BTCC the main segwit mining pool advocate right up until the day of their demise only want their block rewards on legacy addresses.

if you really think devs are that smart.. read this example from the segwit master
"Nodes can already prune history, and I think in the future nearly every node will. This does not impact security, as they still download and verify everything."

if everyone has pruned. where does everyone get the full data to "still download and verify"

i only mention it as a wakeup call that ignoring bitcoin issues purely to defend developers is foolish as devs are temporary entities that are not actually achieving the community goals of improving bitcoin. hense thir need to push people to other networks

world wide refrigeration of bottles of Pepsi uses more electric than bitcoin..
the only benefit of Pepsi is that a few hours after consuming it you can make your toilet water yellow