anyway.
i hope doomad drops his flip flops for a few months and spends the time just researching, learning and gaining a few independant thoughts beyond the reddit scripts he reads of 2015+

but as for CW
he is not a influencer and not important to bitcoin so best to just not treat him as important. let him sizzle into the background

your flip flops is saying how your buddies can do what they like and no one can prevent it.
but anyone opposing your buddies.. their attempt requires permission("need to agree")

do you now see the point of centralising your admitting to.. how core dont need permission(your words) but other groups would need permission

a. cant prevent
b. need agreement

your the one flip flopping about only one side has control basically

anyway. the 2012 consensus bip34 is something coded back in 2012...
BUT was not used AS -IS in 2017
again you admit to the august first bip148 that was a pre-fork method to scew and falsify a consensus by doing a controversial split. you were even extremely happy about the NYA x2 attempt too a few days later.. you seemed very happy that the consensus was abused by pushing people off thee network before a consensus to fake a consensus, to force in something that would not have got activated without the forced pressure (as it only had 35% agreement pre threat)

you trying to even suggest 2017 was a fair true honest consensus of bip 34 is just more flip flops.
anyway

go back to your social drama of thinking bitcoin is cores private property and the community should not tell core what to do when core want to activate network changing code.
but then be happy to tell a forum how a private property should listen to its userbase

point is core SHOULD not OWN the network and be the CORE / Reference... no one should be a CORE REFERNCE.
that was the whole innovation and magic lightbulb moment of 2008-2009 that there doesnt and shouldnt be a core centre of code decision

you are more of a flip flop than a fish out of water. only thing you dont realise the more you just lay there flip flopping with no single chosen direction to move in.. the more your left struggling and weakening yourself.

so spend less time flip flopping, do some real research and choose a mindset to have and stick with it. choose a narrative that has some stats and data to back it up and stick with it. because your flip flops are getting boring and winning you no sympathy even after i have tried to tell you many times to atleast try learning bitcoin more (being helpful, but you treated it as an insult)

as for your flip flop of thinking 2017 used bip 34
hint: bip 148&bip9 is not the same thing as bip 34.
bitcoin ntwork has not used 34 for years.
[/list]

2018 Q1 = +500 get income
2018 Q2 = +500 get income
2018 Q3 =  -500 spend income
still =        +500 still have spar income
where's the loss?

anyways icebreaker long time no see.. what campaign are you planning to REKT next. seems your only loudest when you se a threat against core your about about to instigate a big REKT campaign. so who's your target this year?

but the charts do not show hashing power adjust to prices

if miners were in majority market trending. then the hashrate chart would look exactly like a shadow of the market. a offset copy of the market. a silhouette of a mountainous landscape.
but its not. its a curve. where events can be explained by non market events

secondly. when you are looking at the prices you are not understanding the full picture. you are just seeing the daily adjusted high-mid range.

if you think of bitcoins price as being made up of layers. where by the bottomline (prices people refuse to sell below) as the bottomline support. and anything above is the speculative/random/volitile
like waves above the tideline
you start to see the bigger picture

so if you take the cheapest method of mining. and take the cheapest price of a coin on the market over a period (bottomline support)
and you take the ultimate understanding that people try to find the cheapest way to obtain a coin. which is the mining:market dynamic

and you chart it out. and you will see that its the mining that moves the market

i can understand the flawed 'logic' that basement dwelling hobby miners would follow the markets. as thier costs are higher and they are more 'paycheck to paycheck' mindset of wanting/needing to cashout ASAP.

hobby miners are not looking to hoard bitcoin. they are looking to 'pool hop' to altcoins just to make fiat profit. so yea their mindset is not on securing the bitcoin network, not on growing the bitcoin network. they are happy to jump off the network if a more profitable altcoin is the +% profit of the day coin.
so see the logic not of the FEW hobby miners that pool hop hourly/daily which the CURVE OF HASHPOWER shows and proves the hobby emotional market followers do not impact

but think about it from the logic of the true BITCOIN asic FARMS that make up the majority who are playing a different game and its the majority(farms) that are not playing the same game as hobby miners that are making up the progressive planned CURVES.

again if miners were in majority market trending. then the hashrate chart would look exactly like a silhouette of the market. a silhouette of a mountainous landscape.
but its not. its a curve. where events can be explained by non market events

with that said.
why even have passwords

why not have people register a public address. and then users login by signing a message using the keys of that address.
each log-in will be unique and a hacker cant just use a public key to log-in
whereby log-in is only successful if the unique signature matches. whereby the private key is never given to the forum,ever

it is a few steps better than just having a password on a server and uses a bitcoin feature that is under utilised outside the bitcoin network

1. this forum is not bitcoin. it is not the bitcoin network
2. it is a site owned by someone and not a public community property but a private property
3. how dare doomad demand that a site owner cant/shouldnt add security/suggest precautions to his own property
4. how dare doomad then be hypocritical to say that bitcoins network should not do what the community desire
5. how dare doomad desire a corporate group should decide what to do with the network instead
6. doomad follow your own advice. if you dont like something someone is doing to his property, then you can "f**k off"

i say this as reverse psychology(using his tone and mindeset) for 3,4,5,6 as its apparent that DOOMAD enjoys wanting a core group to ignore community wishes in respect of a community project. but then wants someones private property to follow community desires.

doomad you love bitcoin having core as a nanny state. when bitcoin should not have a 'tory nanny controlling the family
doomad hates bitcoin having open community of diverse family, when bitcoin should have diversity and everyone being members of a family

doomad wake up. core is bitcoins nanny state.
doomad if you dont want someone babysitting their own property. then why love someone babysitting other peoples property

your making my point for me.

YOU said that mining reacts to markets... you just disproved yourself with your own words

i have not just taken a single point.. i took 365 points of hashrate per year
calulated the mining cost

i took the points of market price BOTTOMLINES
and charted it out

and done so for multiple years. i also looked at relevant real world events that affect things.
it was YOU that just looked at 2 charts which were not based on cheapest cost of acquisition
it was you that displayed those 2 basic charts which didnt show a pattern of mining following market.
yet then you insinuated it did based on 2 charts that show the exact opposite

my chart data based on cost of acquisition went back for years with thousands of data points and calculations.

i only mentioned 2 examples just to avoid waffling. because if u were interested in researching and learning more about it. then your free to. no point in throwing out loads of data if all you wanna do is just pok the bear for social drama.

but hey
ill say it again. try to calculate the cost of mining and the bottomline price support (not the daily high market)

anyway.. thanks for your sideline off topic poke which as usual from certain people turns things away from proving a network point into just trying to poke at franky(boring pointless replies to evade actually staying ontopic)

but getting back to the topic

big pools (not basement miners) are smart to pre-plan their expansion. they even pre-contract their OTC coin sales, their costs, etc.so they are not reliant on the market price and dont follow it.

10%-15% a fortnight is not 'massive ramp up..
also the market ramped up from $5k-$20k in winter (400%)
mining didnt ramp up 400%

stompix. is was you that said hashpower followed market
so if market was
 /\
/  \_/\_/\
             \
then mining would be
   /|
_/ |__/|_/|
                \
you would see mining volitile up and down when market ups and downs. and for instance when market goes down in november. the mining would go down in november december(reactionary)
however mining has been a smooth curve up. and when mining went down in OCTOBER(BEFORE)..the market went down in november(AFTER)..

anyway. it might be worth you looking into mining costs and think about mining:market.
where by if its cheaper to mine people mine, if its cheaper to market they will market. people will always be thinking about the cheapest way to obtain bitcoin.

it might be worth you looking not at ATH market. but bottomline support/resistance. and you start to notice something.
it might be worth you investigating/researching the OTC/contract mining contracts and other things

but yea if you think looking at 2 charts where mining IS NOT following market proves your point that mining is following market.. makes no sense.

hint. dont try being a trend anal. especially when your thoughts of mining follows markets is false.. and even when you use to charts to try proving it. the charts themselves dont show a trend which you try to imply (they look nothing alike)
try technical analysis of costs of acquisition(mining:market cost)

but have a nice day

shows you didnt read
"All older clients are compatible with this change. Users and merchants should not be impacted. Miners are strongly recommended to upgrade to version 2 blocks. Once 95% of the miners have upgraded to version 2, the remainder will be orphaned if they fail to upgrade."

the MANDATED fork...
the PRE upgrade disconnect.
has nothing to do with bip 34

so you saying that core in 2017 used something that was available in 2012 is YOUR FAIL

spend less time flip flopping and try and do some deeper thought stuff on actual events.

read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.
read it. blocks are orphaned off AFTER 95% is achieved. not before.

core in summer 2017 did not follow the wait for majority. then activate IF miners agree to suggestion, which would then cause fork
core in summer 2017 did controversially fork off opposition using mandated force via forking early. then fake 95% to activate,

and then he will later say "you cant enforce either of those things"
typical flip flopping

anyway the point is. using a fork (not feature activation) purely to cut out a certain group of people. to then SEPARATELY activate a feature. is not consensus.

but hey.. flip flop like a fish out of water all you like.
but atleast try understanding the whole point of what bitcoin is about. even if core have bypassed consensus to do as the blockchain, code and as you now FINALLY admit. mandate forks via dates and disconnecting nodes. atleast admit that core do have power and they aint just some chimney sweeper, powerless to do anything.
and dont even try to insinuate or meander it back into some social drama that i (on a discussion board) am some how a network threat or that i am the one that is changing the network maliciously and how core have to defend themselves against me.

find logic, do research and understand the point of bitcoin. stop the social drama games with your flip flops

doomad
for months now you and your echo chamber have been basically saying
X cant happen because it involves people to agree to X
X cant happen because Y
Y cant stop X
Y has no power
franky needs to stop trying to change the network with Y
Y Y Y
no one talk about X
franky stop trying to force Y
lets all talk about Y
X never happened
X happened and no one can stop them
X can do as they please
franky is forcing Y changes on the network and core should stop Y
franky franky franky

while completely missing the point that X did happen. and it happened by not using the consensus that has been existant for years.
trying to make it sound as if cores the unicorn and im the network attacker is foolish meandering and just social drama.
trying to make it out that consenus and the byzantine gnrals issue is something that only existed by some altcoiner speach of 2015+ is foolish.
trying to be a core lover but then hide it, but then admit it, but then hide it is foolish.
all your doing is flip flopping for social drama and not actually recognising the point.


trying to meander DEV/CODE/NETWORK events into "shh lets talk about people that dont write network changing code".. thats your goal.. i get it.
now move on and try something new.

meanwhile.
ill continue to highlight when the network code has changed due to devs, whre the change has been controversial and not actually benefited the network but done to promote some central agenda
if you dont like open discussion of such, hit the ignore button

funny thing.
switch the "you" for core. and put it against the 2017 events and try to actually keep up your pretense once the shoe is put on the other foot.
your whole last X months of flip flopping fail when you swap your comments around to be aimed at core instead of me

here is another prime example of a massive logic failure
"but you can't stop someone running code to disconnect a client which is signalling a bit they don't agree with.
You also can't prevent people coding date-based activations."

translation.
you cant stop someone doing something. you cant stop someone preventing something

translation.
someone cannot stop you driving a car. you cant stop someone taking your car away

just shows how you dont understand the byzantine generals issue and how satoshi found a solution to it called consensus in 2008-9
all your concerned about is how cor bypassed consensus and your happy that they can now do as they please

again for emphasis doomad. as its been your main social drama switch
you keep thinking code does not matter and how a discussion on a forum has more network effect.. seriously sort out that silly echo you keep using as it just makes no logic sense.

doomad you keep sweeping things under the rug and then move and meander the crap you spew out as "my idea"
do your research. and dont find someone from 2015+ who is just some mouthpiece.
i mean go all the way back to 2008-2015 and research devs, code, whitepapers, technical stuff that will teach you about what bitcoin truly is (pre core manipulation)

you really love turning real network changing events into social drama. purely because you love centralisation.
but your missing the whole point of bitcoin

though 'my idea' is just discussion... you pretend its code that is somehow actually causing network conflict.. again your not thinking logically

the only network conflict has been caused by core devs
you pretend no on is able to force their 'idea' in.. yet then say core can do as they please and activate things by dat and force things in.
again. stop flip flopping. do some research, find the blockdata, stats, dev admissions and code which supports a flip or a flop.. and then stick with one narrative.
admit core now control the network. or admit they never should control the network. stop flip flopping

p. s stop trying to insinuate that core are just chimney sweepers and that somehow my forum discussions are more powerful than code.. as that is your massive logic error which you try to use to deflect the discussion away from CODE that DEVS write

its why i dont give a crap about CW. because he aint a dev and he aint playing with bitcoin. if you think CW is an influencer. then your really missing the point of bitcoin and the understanding of devs, code, network,and how things work

what doomad cannot reconcile or understand. is that 65% the community were not core 'happy'. but core opposers never used force or coersion.

yet it was the core 'happy' group that done the mandated activations, NYA tricks of deploy core roadmap and maybe get extra later, and the other stuff.

yes core had the tricks to take people off the network disagreeing with core even before cores actual feature they wanted voted in got the vote.
CODE and blockdata prove it.

so.. if doomads latest quote is anything to go by..

if a software client feels they need to include something that results in a hard fork. then let the honest nodes of TRUE consensus and byzantine generals solution cause the activation of the new feature if its acceptable, which THEN results in a fork for the minority. and not let allow a fork be the only reason the new feature gets the activation.
meaning no fork pre-activation. meaning no force or coercion

again to highlight the point that keeps getting tried to be brushed under the rug. no hard fork pre feature. just to fake a feature vote



this means if people truely, honestly like the feature, it gets activated without a pre-fork. where the new feature itself THEN causes a fork after activation whereby only a minority is affected by a feature fork
this means if people truely, honestly dislike the feature, it doesnt activated to cause the fork, thus nothing happens, no harm no foul

this ensures those proposing features actually think about features and actually propose things that would benefit the community rather than just their groups plan.
but hey we will just hear how doomad and thos who echo the same as him loves the idea that core can do as they please as consensus is meaningless and permissionless is everything and how core deserve to dictate the rules for other nodes to follow. and if people dont like it they can just f**k off

to spend a year+ defending a group pretending they are open and represent the community, and pretend they cant do nothing... but also say they dont need to listen/represent to the community and should do anything they please is utterly beyond just a flip flop. but admitting control, centralisation of decisions is now occuring. and no longer the consensus/byzantine generals solution is in place.

learn alot?
more like dismiss alot.
CW has not been involved since 2009, id say he got involved ~2011-13
CW is not a computer scientist. he admits he cant even manage a linked-in page
CW cant even write a client from scratch
he didnt flee australia due to doxxing, he fled to avoid court trouble and contacted gizmodo to doxx himself
CW doxxed himself in 2015 setting up his drama after getting into aussie tax trouble trying to use fame as a 'proof of id' ruse to use as a get out of trouble ploy

anyway CW should not even be used as a source of info as he is just playing with with an altcoin
best thing is to read and understand the code and things like how byzantine generals theory and consensus play out (before core trojan edited it)

CW is a flip flopper, like many others. he grabs satoshi quotes to pretend he is satoshi(anon-anarc-inventor-libertarian/socialist) but then CW says other things that show he is a (public-legal-capitalist)

---

ontopic
oh and by the way CW tripped.
when h talked about a block that was just over 1mb(before segwit) that got rejected. he (falsly) claimed that only miners picked up the block and rejected it.
this was not the case.

many nodes were set to get a block header/block and relay it out and then calculate values/validate signatures, compare it to block hash and all the other multiple checks and then reject it out of their node in about 2 seconds when seen as bad. which happened.

and thus when the next block comes along they can then see which block is being built on which block and if being built ontop of the rejected block, orphan off that as the child(youngest/newest) block is building on the wrong path/branch

if the seeder peer keeps sending you that same rejected block. then eventually your node would ban the node as a spammer

much like the bug found in 0.17 which if nodes never got bad blocks, then the bug found wouldnt be a issue but in a indepentant relay and validation network a block with the bug would have caused issues


what some believe(wrongly) should be the case is that pools should only talk to themselves first. and reject, before passing anything out to mattblues FIBRE initial validator node to validate and then relay it using the main FIBRE relay ring network only what mattblue deems as fine, again before the bitcoin node network, thus the main bitcoin nodes only get valid blocks

the issue with not even letting nodes have a chance to reject is that they are then become just sheep to their seeding peer which they just leach from.
which is where this topics myth is all about
the central group want it to be a central group where nodes have no independent thought/function and thats the bit where CW is talking using his capitalist-legal mind and twisting the original bitcoin decentralised independence of anarc-libertarian-socialist real function of bitcoin nodes

anyway my node got the block of just over 1mb and rejected it in 2 seconds. and would have got blocks which if created with the latest bug, would have rejected that too.

in essence. if your node has not seen a reject or a orphan when you check your log file then your node is a sheep archival node thats not part of the main relay/validation network and not the latest symbiotic function 'full node' but instead just a downstream node

nice image
i call it TREND ANAL's.... emphasis on the anal
which is different from TECHNICAL analysis
.. but yea
if people are just drawing lines on a chart, where they they are just finding 2 price points to line together.. thats not technical.. thats trend.. and is just pointless

anyone who has ever had a girlfriend or wife knows. if you had sex for the last 3 weks does not guarantee your gonna get it the fourth week
if you ate pizza for the last 3 weeks doesnt mean your gonna want it as much the 4 week
if you have  new born baby that peacefully slept 2 nights in a row, does not mean your gonna get it to happen every night

if you just look at a stat and draw a line. its meaningless and just poorly done trend anal

firstly your thinking hashrate of day X affects day X of market top price.  if you knew the basics you would know thats never gonna be the case anyway
secondly your only looking at the market from the point of view of the top prices. your not even thinking about underline value support. and it seems like something you cant get your head around.
thirdly your not actually taking the numbers and drawing your own charts.
fourthly you are not thinking about cause/reaction

i tried to give you 2 small examples and then see if ud bother doing some actual research (shows keen interest) but instead you just wanna take a 2 second glance and then form an opinion. meaning the point aint that important to you so not much point in me spending time spoon feeding you about the mining:market dynamics and the layers of value/speculation.

but it aint just me that knows of the mining:markt dynamics. it even goes back as far as hal finney talking about it in the early days of bitcoin.
and even further back in regards to other assets.
her is a little hint. cost of creation(ull learn things lik the summer 2018 mining cost:bitcoin market underlying bottomline value)

and by the way. the altcoin drama is just that. altcoin... and drama. if you bothered to check and do some resarch you would find that the altcoin drama is a later story line used as the weak excuse after thought to PRETEND to be cause of X event. purely to drum up fake fame by altcoin dramatists pretending they are influencers. when in reality thy are late to the party gatcrashers who then just want to take selfies to pretend they had a great time organising the party. rather than the reality of them being uninvited gatecrashers that are insignificant

any way. there was no massive ramp up of hashpower january2018, followed by a hashpower correction in the spring

UNDERLYING VALUE is not "market price"
when YOU see the market price all you are seeing is the speculative bubbles that sit above the water line of a bath tub. your not seeing the underlying water line

how ever during low speculation/bubble periods where you get to see the waterline beneath. its much clearer to see the mining:market dynamics at play.


take the OCTOBER'13 hashrate rise, and THEN the market rise
take the OCTOBR'18 hashrate curve down, and THEN the market dip
there are multiple other examples over the years. but if you just want to look at the market speculative prices.. then ill save the explanation for another time when you might b ready to go beyond the basics

a false picture on the electricity consumption of bitcoin is provided in the article

ok.. some maths.(same math as infographic. but basing it on more logical/acceptable ASICS of the period)
hashrates peaked at around 60exa in 2018
in 2018 s9's were the main ASIC

60,000,000thash / 14thash = 4,285,714 asics
at 1.3kwh=5,571,428kwh

*24*365=48,805,709,280kwh a year
=48.8Twh a year.. not 70

and thats a number doing like the article done by assuming to *24*365
foolish thing with he 70twh and the 48twh is that its a dumb multiple
the network did not actually USE 70, nor 48
as that just wrongly suggesting when the hashrate got to 60exa. it had always been using 60exa 24 hours a day 365 a year

so lets take the daily hashrates and get the daily energy consumption,, then add up each day. instead of just multiplying a peak time by 365
1st october 2017-1st october2018 (oct18 being the peak electric utility): 22.656twh actually used for the year
1st january 2019-1st january 2019(full 2018 year): 29.592twh used for the year

anyway. it takes more  to power all the refrigerators to keep bottles of pepsi chilled around the world, than it does to scure bitcoin.

id prefer to have energy intensive (concentrated on one task) rather than extensive(diluted and spread to 1000 sharded crapcoins)

if you had a baby. would you want it looked after in
an intensive care unit with lots of nurses checking it
an extensive care unit with fewer nurses checking lots of babies

plus, its digital not a flower so yea use of electric energy will be involved.
its not a flower after all, otherwise the claim would be water intensive

id rather have something that has lots of cost of creation to give it underlying value. than something cheap to create such as POS coins which there is less underlying value. thus meaning it needs more speculative crap to bring the price up to be nearer to something with underlying value.
 

actually. the market follows the hashrate.

take 2013
asics hit the market in october of 2013... market rises

take 2018
next gen asics announced.. so selling off of old s9's dirt cheap in october. less hashpower. means those left get biggr slice of th reward pie. meaning they profit more meaning they sell more.. thus novembers price decline

..
what you need to separate is the mindsets of certain people.
smart mining groups plan a year in advance. they dont react to price drama. they contract their electrical costs in, a year ahead with calculated predictable rises included. they buy /make asics at set schedules. they sell coins OTC based on contracted amounts/prices. thus market prices doesnt affect business much(though they can take advantage of market prices using excess coins)

its the small home/basement/garage hobbiests that react to markets. by 'pool jumping' depending on most profitable coin of the day

if you look at the pools as a whole and compare the market prices. you see the smart pools thats hashrate averages have a smoother change.. the dumb pools usually have no smooth change and just all over the place.
this is why BTCC didnt last. they were market followers. based mainly due to them being management of home/hobbiests