You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple slices as full definitions of apples
You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple phones as apple fruits simply because a name says its an apple

soft is soft because its soft.
hard is hard because its hard.

one hurts more then the other.. cant get more simpler than that

atleast you admit now UASF is a break of consensus.
meaning hard
one step forward.
but dont backtrack by saying its soft purely by the social word play drama tricks of "what does S stand for"
buzzword names mean nothing. the action/result speak for itself. UASF was hard. end of

FTFY

but hey. you be ignorant to code and how the network actually works.
you continue to just read blogs.

now ask yourself.. are blogs important to network function.. or is code important to network function
hint: if you want to know how a network works, read code not blogs

FTFY

i use the term symbiotic relationship instead of 'consensus' because recent controversies that mess with consensus. due to a certain group have changed the meaning of true consensus as it was 2009-2013. so the only closest term would be symbiosis

windfury..
gotta love your "keep personal opinions out of it"
and your own gaslighting.

but.

1. luke is greedy. and luke got paid alot of money for UASF(as did samson mow). and aswell as the UASF.. luke got extra as a VC tranche of money in november 2017 for getting segwit activated before the november 2017 deadline.

there was no coincidence that luke started the timer for the initial version in november 2016 to end november 2017
no coincidence that he pushed the 148 UASF as early as august to ensure activating by november 2017. no coincidence for the NYA drama either.. and no coincidence that there was VC money thrown in this direction in november 2017

oh and also this new 300k thing.. also dated august 1st like the 148 was
no coincidence
you might want to try doing some research before replying.

because replying just to say you dont like me mentioning a bitcoin dev or core negatively when they are doing some crap stuff
i do wonder, why are you defending him. why have i seen you many times defending devs.

im guessing you think you can earn something by doing some PR. is that the goal. getting income for over promoting things and trying to push negative points into obscurity.
 
but here is the funny part. you and your buddy group OVER defend devs. because there have been many times when devs themselves happily admit their actions. but when i bring them up. you and your buddies try defending a dev as if the dev is innocent.
its either lack of research. or its kissing their ass without them knowing to then hope when you lot do highlight how much of an ass kisser you all are, they see lots of evidence.

are you trying to build up a portfolio of ass kissing before asking blockstream or DCG for a job or something?
because the lack of research and tactics of twisting things around just to try to make devs look good even when they happily admit they are happy being controversial capitalists.. seems a little off..

maybe next time start with research BEFORE hitting the reply button.

the reason i ask is.
this is a bitcoin forum, but it seems you and your buddies are more interested in the 'defend human and corporation' social drama.
so when people high light how humans(devs) negatively do things to the network. your not interested in defending the network. your more interested in the social drama

anyway
1. bitcoin is not "broken software". but luke has said the bitcoin blockchain is broke.
(gotta love your subtlety with 'software' to tweak the narrative away from his words).

2. however as a separate thing,, the "software" (core) has been tweaked in ways to stifle BITCOIN network utility to promote another network. there are many possible ways to appease users initial experience of downloading the blockchain. but the software has been tweaked to do the opposite. with only a few tweaks of pretend optimisation. which is just in reality to avoid the new features further irritating users, rather than sort problems

3. he actually is greedy. he actually does love altcoins, merge mining for extra income and doing things for money rather than caring about the network. check right back to his eligius days

4. the echo chamber rants of you using the term "big blocks".. you really are not researching, and just repeating the group mindset

5. again its not hard to follow the money. ill give you 2 tips.. $25m and 21st november 2017

6. segwit 1x was not a compromise.. you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel if you think segwit1x is a 'compromise'

ive said it repeatedly over the years

if you have say $10k. dont throw it all into one order and then wait to sell when it 3x's(300%)(could be years)
its better to put $1k in and sell as soon as it 1%(0.01x)(hours/days)

if that 1% doesnt hit in a few hours but the price drops instead. you still got $9k(9 other chances) to get even better deals. thus make more profit faster.

rather than sitting there punching your desk that your $10k is locked in at a high price.

a year of waiting for a one time 300%(3x) is the worse than 300 days of daily 1% = more than 300%(3x)
hours of waiting for a one time 1% of $10k is the worse than hours of 10 $1k = more than 1%

this is the basic rule of "dont put all of your eggs into one basket"

more limited perspective by you.
try going back to 2009

your taking a certain type of soft and a certain type of hard. used as just one example in some wiki... and thinking thats the full scope.

to simplify the full scope
soft is soft because it doesnt require/cause mass disruption/controversy
hard is hard because it does require/cause mass disruption/controversy

you can try to limit the extent of disruption/controversy of hard and soft via different ways.
but you cant make a hard fork become a soft fork by just calling it such on a webpage and on twitter. or be selling baseball caps

your 2014 limited scope version is one example. where yes a hard requires majority upgrade for network adoption otherwise big issues
your 2014 limited scope version is one example. where yes a soft wont cause big issues if X happens

but now ur just meandering the topic away from the topic with your buzzword twisting
you can spend months meandering and playing the buzzword twisting game. so best you actually spend some time going back and researching things fully, rather than just taking the first google search result you find as gospel.
expand your mind. try not to limit yourself. and its better to spend months researching than months trying to pretend a hard is actually soft

you again keep pretending that non-mining nodes do not validate..
try reading some code..
CODE not reddit
CODE

anyway
and to the same respect by your words.. saying that there should be no non-mining nodes. (because you dont understand)
if there were no non-mining node validation, then that would give all the power to miners to modify rules as they deem fit. because in your scenario there is no other party to say no to miners, no other symbiotic relationship to keep miners ontrack and honest.

so its your mindset of thinking non-mining nodes dont validate. that has stuck you in th realm of thinking that non-mining nodes are not needed.

but non-mining nodes DO validate thus there is a  mining/non-mining symbiotic relationship. everyone benefits from playing fairly and being honest in that relationship.. its called consensus.

if you want a network where all that exists is miners(federal mint) and explorers(banks/atms) go play with centralised FIAT

no your going into fantasy land of there only being one mon-mining node (coinbase)..
the reality is there needs to be DIVERSE nodes that way everyone symbiotically plays fairly and all by the same rules.
(research diversity/consensus/byzantine generals theory)

EG if coinbase say no to miners(out of some social drama spite, yet the block is actually valid). but then bitstamp, bitpay, bitfinex and other say yes(the block is actually valid) then miners will spend their funds with other exchanges, and coinbase is left not getting blocks and thus not trading, thus coinbase is left out

AGAIN SYMBIOTIC relationship known as consensus.. learn it

no.. a explorer just displays data. someone just viewing said data wont know if its accurate unless they themselves validate it.
non-mining nodes validate data.
READ THE CODE!!

just seeing a list of transactions from an explorer doesnt mean its valid. who knows what rule that explorer is following. unless you have a list of rules and your checking the data you see against the rules, you will never know if what a block explorer is providing is actually valid.

again your fantasy land is that only coinbase exist.

reality is that there is more than just coinbase, if coinbase reject a block out of bias, but then dozens, hundreds of other merchants/users say yes. nodes will follow whats best
and coinbase loses out.

an economic blackmail would only be persuasive if the majority of major exchanges/merchants collectively said they want X
hmm.. like some NYA social drama.. to get people to accept sgwit1x, under some red-herring trick that if they accept x1 that 2x might be a possibility later.. all to try to get more of an adoption count for segwit1x in 2017

update your research



coinbase alone couldnt blackmail the network unless coinbase was the only merchant. (your fantasy land)
.. but the thing is.
remember 2017.. the NYA agreement that swayed people to maybe accept segwit by giving a red-herring flag of if you accept segwit1x then segwit 2x woud be an option.. just to try to get segwit1x adopted
yea NYA was a economic blackmail... segwit2x was not even a real bip. it was just a trick to get segwit1x gain adoption numbers above the 35%

yes, NYA, (big list of the major merchants) was a economic blackmail.
which, along with lukes controversial fork threat of UASF(hard pretending to be soft but the threat was hard) and other trickery of pushing opposers off the network, caused segwit1x to activate.. but doing so was by controversial means.

your flat 2 dimensional scenarios that seems to be based on a lame medium post rather than code reading and network topology understanding. is something you need to expand on.

you seem too stuck thinking non mining nods dont validate.. and the only purpose is to relay. break out of that mindset quickly by reading code and doing research. or you will just drive yourself in circles



i mention coinbase as an example of a merchant... i didnt mention others as it would take pages to list them all. so by not mentioning others does not mean they dont exist. it jsut means i was saving time writing the thousands of merchants.

but your fantasy is going weirdly into a world where only coinbase exist as a non-mining node. simply because i didnt mention others.

again if there were no nonmining nodes to actually independently verify the transactions they see, then miners wont be held to any standard as they could make what they liked
people should not just trust what they get from third party as being law.

this is why non mining nodes (merchants/users) independently verify the transactions
but because merchants are personally involved in more transactions than a home users. because they handle so many trades and can be hurt by losses by not verifying, then yes it gives them more 'clout' than home users. as the miners and home users want merchants to see valid transactions. so people can spend with them merchants.

merchants wont want to just view some third party explorer.. blindly trust it and then give people products/fiat.. because 2 seconds later the explorer could show as being hacked and what was displayed was false info.

but the same respect goes the other way. its not just miners with funds to spend. its users too. so merchants need to be just as honest or users wont use the merchants

and by there being more than one merchant merchants stay honest because if they dont then people simply dont use that merchant
.......
so non-mining nodes will want to independently check what they see. if its going to cost them lots of funds/value by not checking.
so thats what they do. they verify what they get to ensure what they see is valid, and they reject whats invalid
this ensures the miner stay honest. merchants stay honest and home users stay honest. so that they all get the same data and all happy thats its al valid and they are all on the same network able to transact between one another.
they all see the same info they all independently verified without having to trust other parties(explorers)

bitcoin is about independent control, verification and not having to trust third parties for data.

seems as though your fantasy land is in a land where you think there is only 2 nodes in existence.
you really need to learn consensus mechanism, byzantine generals theory, the network symbiosis, rejects, orphans, honest nodes. validation code in non-mining nodes

try reading code and seeing the verification that non mining nodes do.
again if you personally are just running a 'repeater' node that just receives and relays without checking. then maybe you need to realise that its you thats not part of the main layer of the network symbiosis(consensus)

try reading more code, and try reading less reddit/medium

ive seen you manipulate and flip flop in every post you make
NODES are needed
but not everyone NEEDS to be a node(for the sake of thinking that small users are helping the network by having 100 connections, etc)

this is not me saying only miners are needed.. as there is a symbioses at play where non mining nodes are needed.
but not everyone NEEDS to be a non-mining node with loads of connections (old term 'supernode')

my mindset is even if personally you only NEED to check certain addresses. the best thing to do is not strain your internet or other nodes experience by having over 100 connections diluting/bottlenecking your internet.
drop it to a couple connections so that the receivers of your data get the best experience and least bottlenecks

try having some coffee and doing some research, runs some scenarios. actually read some code. and do less social drama crap as its just boring

EDITED 21st september 2018
HA HA HA

heres a tip
buzzwords "user assisted softfork"(UASF)
buzzwords "miner assisted softfork"(MASF)
were non existant terms before LUKE dreamed them up .
it was all false social drama, to try to hid/downplay the controversy it would cause.. calling it soft doesnt mean its soft. it just a word someone chose for a buzzword to confuse the sheep

if you dont know what controversial fork (hard) is. then you really have not looked at what real hard/soft are in regards to real hard/soft forks since many years before lukes bait/switch social games name twisting buzzwords

but hey.. because a certain group buzzworded it in the last 2 years. (like 'conservative' you will follow their buzzword as the truth, rather than really understand/research
in short a soft fork is a fork that is not controversial or causes much network effect/damage. thus its soft
if it causes controversy/drama/alot of network effect.. its hard

even luke knows that. which is why he now wants to use the buzzword "inflight upgrade" for softforks
even other devs knows that. which is why they now wants to use the buzzword "compatible upgrade" for softforks

khaos read some code
^ wrong

little secret. learn orphan, learn reject, learn consensus, learn honest nodes, learn symbiosis, learn byzantine generals.

if you sent me a block i can reject it if it doesnt fit the rules.. i dont blindly accept it
if i see out of 8 peers that 6 are showing blockheight 600,000 and 2 are showing blockheight 599,500
im gonna grab data from the 6 nodes that are at 600,000.
and then im gonna do my own checks, my own validations and only trust the data i find that is valid
i do not just grab the data and pass it on.

seriously go read some code or get a better node if all you have is a relay/repeater node (much like fibre)

lets word it another way
mining nodes are the U.S Fed Mint.. one day they accidently put pink ink into the printers instead of green. and then send out pink bank notes.

non minting users dont just accept it. they check the note see its not green and reject it.
soon enough mining nodes realise they screwed up and certain serial number range is invalid, they orphan out that serial number pink notes and again start the serial number range using green ink

if they carried on with pink ink. shops would just wait for the green bank notes and reject pink notes. because everyone is under the understanding that only green inked notes are tender.

you are foolish if you think mining nodes can just mint what they like and users accept it.
you really need to do some research.
read code.. not reddit/twitter/medium

...
i think the context of the medium article your misunderstanding is this

in 2009-2011 a "full node" done dozens of jobs
in 2011-2012 a "full node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and things like CG miner done a couple jobs
in 2013+ a "pool node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs and ASIC done a couple jobs
in 2013+ a "non mining node" done slightly less than dozens of jobs

the misunderstanding is that calling nodes after 2011 a full node.. is less than accurate. because no nodes do the full job list. different things work symbiotically to get the whole list complete but no single node does it all, thus the terminology of "full node" becomes vague

but that DOES NOT mean that non-mining nodes do not validate and decide. and does not mean in a 'honest node' consensus network that non-mining nodes are not part of the symbioses.

without non mining nodes to be the auditors of mining nodes. people end up having to BLINDLY trust mining nodes.
mining nodes without non-mining nodes would then be on a central rampage of doing as they please knowing merchants blindly trust mining nodes.

but the reality is bad blocks do get rejected, orphaned by user nodes and if repeat offending active rules the nodes sending out offending rulebreaking data get banned.

learn about the symbioses of consensus on a honest node network
read some code. not medium/reddit/twitter

nope
if your full node only validates the transactions of blocks. then you need a better node.


non mining nodes are symbiotic to mining nodes.
firstly coinbase dropping its full node status and just using xplorers not only then destroys the zero trust thing.. it also makes the explorers more centralised if all merchants started trusting the explorers.

secondly its not just the block data but also the whole chain height, hashes and such it compares to peers to ensure that there is a majority in favour of one rather than another.

this is why people say having 8 diverse nodes to compare and get data. so that there is something to compare and contrast the blockheights chaintips etc. and then when it comes to how many nodes you connect to, to send data out.. well if ur a home user keep it lower, to lessen your 'bandwidth' cries

you do realise. if all 20 pools made a bad block. the network would reject them all.. and just wait for a good block..
meaning mining nodes cant spend their funds withiin the network.

mining pools can continue on building blocks ontop of their own blocks but will never get to spend them. thus mining nodes end up being honest and following the network rules to get the network to accept their blocks so that every non mining node has them and then as such the non mining nodes follow the most complete(heighest) chain they can see from their peers. they all come to a agreement. and as such mining nodes get to spend their funds.

again if you think a non mining node just tx validates. then you need a better node
again if you think a non mining node just tx stores. then you need a better node
again if you think a non mining node just tx/block relays. then you need a better node

there is a significant reason to have blockheights, chain tips, blockhashes. to ensure peers all agree on a clear majority

mining nodes:
validate
collate(block create)
relay

non-mining nodes:
validate
relay

take coinbase.com. get them to turn off their non-mining nodes and you will soon realise that MINING NODES cant spend their blockrewards on coinbase.com because coinbase.com cant see or trust that a miner has value to spend.
non mining nodes do validate.
..
how ever there are some software that just relay. such as matt corrallos 'fibre' and also some lite nodes designed specifically to just relay out data unchecked independantly.
....
also.
if one mining node made block X with an error
if one mining node made block Y with without an error

with coinbase.com's NON-mining node. would validate both attempts(if both received near same time and Y has not yet been built on to be defined as a clear winner) and when when validated deem block Y the winner. and as such Block Y can happily be placed as the next block coinbase keeps. thus allowing the miner of Y to spend the block reward. where as mining node X will get forgot/rejected
....
also
because coinbase.com has a chain that includes block Y.. and other peers see that coinbase and N other peers also have Y then the consensus is that the chain containing block Y is more acceptable to everyone compared to that the one node trying endlessly to push block X. eventually the one node endlessly pushing X would get banned from being a connected node if it made too many push requests

...
also
whn the MINING nodes want to make the next block. they see many peers have chosen Y. and thus its best they build a block on Y to avoid orphan event

.. also
non-mining nodes do check with their peers what best chaintip, height and blockhash to follow and wouldnt really bother even trying to look at a chain containing X if Y has more acceptance amongst peers and also Y is ahead with other blocks now above it and the network building on further.

and to all those that try to play the situation i explained off as some craig wright(scammer 2015+) thing..
satoshi(real bitcoin creator 2008-2010) said about issues of home users bottlenecking the network
and also core/blockstream dev Pieter Wuille did too...

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8109/how-does-one-attain-1-000-connections-like-blockchain-info/8140#8140
"Please don't change this, as there is no need. Connectable peers on the network are a scarce resource, and essential to the decentralization. If people go try connect to all of them like some sites do, we'll very quickly run out.

In case you're a merchant or miner, you perhaps want to set up a few fixed connections to trusted others (see the -addnode command line/config option), but having more connections does not mean stronger verification (the reference client always verifies everything) or even faster relaying (as you'll slow down by distributing new blocks and transactions to all your peers). It is mostly a matter of providing a service to the network"

..
so yea
by making too many un-needed connections which not only bring out the "my bandwidth usage is high costing me money" cries. but also the recievers of your data are only getting a smaller % of your speed as its diluted across too many connected nodes.

exactly, lower the count down and youll save alot of bandwidth, thus allowing the speed you do have to be more concentrated on those that NEED connections

mining nodes validate the transactions they receive, and collate them into blocks. they then create an identifier of the collated block, and send that to a bunch of ASIC machines which then make a more secured, harder to break identifier for the block.

the block with this strong identifier is sent out to the network.
the network then validate it all and if all is good, the network(non mining nodes) retain that block and also relay it on.
if a node (mining or not) was to send a bad block to another node it would get rejected

the nodes that retain the block(a good honest list of blocks that all meet the rules.) would if all nodes done the same find that all their identifiers match, making it easier and non-controversial for new blocks to be added on. as new blocks also contain identifiers of the previous block. thus making a chain of blocks that continually grow, because everyones list of blocks match

the symbiosis:
mining nodes validate and collate data into blocks. but non mining nodes validate and retain good list of blocks.
if blocks are bad then a miner will find their block is not in the list, and as such merchants/exchanges/shops/services wont see their block and thus the miners cant spend the rewards with said merchant.

its not a non mining vs mining node debate many should concern themselves about. because they are both symbiotic and rely on each other.
mining nodes make the blocks. non-mining nodes view whats in a block to know funds have moved/spent/spendable

the real debate is about merchant/service nodes(non mining) being more important than home user nodes(non mining), on the bases that:
miners dont really spend funds to home users. so miners dont care to send blocks to home users
merchant nodes usually have business rated internet and NEED to monitor/view hundreds of payments a day.
home users only care about 1-2 a day, and usually only have home rated internet

thus home users requirement to:
validate thousands of tx a block is not personally something they NEED
retain thousands of tx a block is not personally something they NEED
and with home rated internet. if they did set node connections to 10-100 would find the bandwidth used to be a seed for others is not something that is a benefit to anyone on the sending or receiving side

imagine a home user with 5mb connection but 100 nodes connected.. thats 0.05mb per node (sending ~1.2mb 100x)
imagine a home user with 5mb connection but 2 nodes.. thats 2.5mb per node(sending 1.2mb 2x)

the second option is better for home user as the block is sent in seconds to just 2 users meaning speedy. also its only 2.4mb total instead of 120mb total.

now imagine it from the receiver side.. imagine a merchant was connected to a home node. the merchant wont want to get data at 0.05mb speed they would prefer 2.5mb speed
so not only will the home user benefit by lowering nodes connected but also the people on the other end would benefit too
its far better that a home user only connects to 1-2 nodes for own benefit and have just enough for own NEED, and let the merchants that have a higher NEED do the higher node connected higher bandwidth/sped connections. as they NEED it more

its not "broke" .. but yes people like luke*. will assume and try to promote such.
Lukes true nature is that luke is greedy. luke loves altcoins, merge mine income from different networks and such.  

there actually is no problem with bitcoin and blockchains, if certain real BITCOIN innovations occur. i am not talking about jumping to "gigabytes by midnight" which false mantra a that a certain group have stuck in their head as the lame excuse not to even try scaling bitcoin
im talking about bitcoin optimisations and SCALING(not leaping)

what i found truly funny. yes luke always hated bitcoin scaling and didnt even like the 1mb limit years ago. but as soon as it become apparent that the only way h can enforce segwit(to claim his VC funded prize) would be to accept 4mb. he soon went quiet about '2mb a block/100gb a year is bad'. and suddenly he became happy about 4mb possibilities(2.1-2.5 more realistic capability).
(now he has his VC funded tranche of income, now he wants to backtrack things. as do certain group that desire to de-burden bitcoin of utility to push people to other networks in the hopes of greedy income streams)

by the way, bitcoin is not too much for peoples bandwidth/hardware. in as much as online gaming or live streaming(which requires more data)


*(by which ill also tag you into that group as you seem to have your foot stuck in the door of preferring to de burden bitcoin of utility with your LN optimisms and not wanting bitcoin scaling)

1. bip 148 was a controversial HARD fork. it was coded to be a hard fork, it performed as a hardfork. but was 'social dramatised' buzzworded as soft purely by the use of some baseball caps that samson mow handed out. and false promotions by the DCG NYA that pay blockstream/luke/mow and all them involved
basball caps and twitter pics does not make something hard go soft.(unless your looking at porn and then the next pic you see is trump wearing a 'make america ggreat again' cap )

2. one might call it an elephant or a helicopter. but doesnt make it so.

3. actually based on a 2015 meeting where there was a community compromise of a segwit2mb. if luke actually didnt back out of that decision with his chimney sweep/janitor/im not a contributor step back tactic.. segwit could have actually got activated a year earlier, while also letting legacy offer better transaction count possibilities and also without the wishy washy code. of witness scale factor.
but nah luke didnt like segwit2mb and only wanted segwit1x which when released as an option in november 2016, only obtained 35% approval by spring 2017...
so luke doubled down with wishy washy code and controversial tactics employed to force it in

and here we are 2019... transaction counts still under 600k a day(under7tx/s)
and here we are 2019... transaction that can still b malleated. yep both with legacy, and due to new opcodes, segwit is vulnerable again
and here we are 2019... with the only direction change being a new tx format thats only real purpose was to be a gateway to another network

..
so late 2015... early 2019. and people are still demanding scaling.. and what conclusion is there.. to deburden bitcoin of its utility and move people off the network
well done.. (sarcasm) way to go... celebrate bitcoin by saying get off the network. congrats for 3 years of.. well ill end my sarcasm there

gotta love the media over hype. untill you then read the details
"Over 150 people bought pizza with bitcoin this week by using the Lightning Network."
"We’re trying to make bitcoin fun again and illustrate that lightning is at a point where it is mainstream-ready.”"


seems stats are showing that although there were 1500 attempted orders in the last couple days, only 10% ended in success. with fold saying it was due to users having problems using the lightning wallets

"The largest barrier to conversion was setting up a new lightning wallet,” Reeves said, adding there were roughly 1,500 orders but only a 10 percent conversion rate because people struggled to use lightning-enabled bitcoin wallets."

https://www.coindesk.com/pizza-lightning-bitcoin

and there it is squatter pumped the "conservative" speach..
ok squatter has now entered what seems to be the echo chamber of the core defence league andd centralist loving crowd

P.S bip 148 was not soft. ys he was instrumental in it. but in no way was 148 soft. it was controversial hard fork
hint august 1st.

dang. such a naive article.
"instantly confirmed" "settled for under a cent"... dang they have no clue of reality.

but you dont have a channel open with domino's store X in town X..
you have a channel open with a buffer hub that takes the DDos strain off of FOLD servers and your indirectly paying FOLD.

the FOLD indirectly pays domino's

domino's has no clue the end order is even related to bitcoin.
domino's has no clue what LN is

all domino's would see is a pizza order, customers address and a paid with dollars

(dont get me wrong, i pay many things using my bitcoin, which in some cases goes through intermediaries. but i personally dont gimmickery around over promoting the merchants that provide me with goods as 'bitcoin accepting businesses' when they dont. however the businesses that do directly receive my bitcoin. and know of it, i do highlight and promote as bitcoin accepting businesses)