1a. scaling bitcoin is about bitcoin not other networks(LN)
1b. scaling bitcoin is NOT about jumping to "gigabytes by midnight" to cause "central server".. its about scaling. meaning progressive step by step growth. such as the 0.25mb, 0.5mb, 0.75mb, 1mb SCALING that occured before core decidd 1mb was enough and halted SCALING
(and dont pretend scaling continued because with witness scale factor=4 means we still have legacy at 1mb and transaction counts have not surpassed the 600k level known about since 2010 of what a 1mb limit implies)

2a. here is your mindset "gaslighting" scaling with FUD of "bigblocks". firstly many many many of the community compromised down to a scale of 2mb. but CORE's actions with their centralised control of the code pushed off any opposers to segwit1x because core only wanted legacy at 1mb. core only had 35% vote for segwit1x. but instead of core compromising to 2x or something else. they instead done controversial tactics to push opposers off the network to fake approval vote of segwit1x

2b. the whole social drama around hearne, gavin, and the others was just that, social drama. all in an affort to sway people away from wanting diversity and to blindly accept a central control of the code. by trying to convince people diversity on the network was bad.

2c. the NYA agreement of 2017's version of segwit2x (not the 2015 segwit2mb).. the 2x was just social drama to again try to attain more people to atleast accept segwit. and then slam down the 2x part as soon as they got enough 'vote' to get segwit active

i find it truly funny how you and your buddies keep thinking that scaling bitcoin is a "gigabytes by midnight" concept. when the reality of such is all just a ploy to centralise the code to a group that DCG can manage so that the DCG portfolio can get their commercial network(LN) so that businesses can get income from a crypto payment system

i also find it funny how the roadmap of core had been laid out to cause a fee war and make it appear that blockchains are not successful and only LN is the solution.

seriously do your research
gavin and all the rest are all in it together and paid by the same group. it was all just one big 3 sea-shell game of distractions

but if you really think that scaling bitcoin (progressively) is bad and you think it will lead to a central server. then you are definetly stuck with the wrong information being echo'd into your ear.

if you really think the internet cannot cope with a few mb every 10minutes. then go tell that to the hundreds of internet businesses that billions of people use alot to upload. such as twitch, online gaming, skype facetime, facebook. where users can happily upload and download more than you think.

statistics show that the internet average for the world is not dial-up and hard drive capacities are not floppy disks. so if you want to exaggerate to pretend your "gigabyte by midnight central server" mindset has a point. atleast back it up with stats that show that scaling (to atleast move passed the 600k tx a day legacy limit) has actually some legitimacy in staying at 600k a day.
if your only rebuttal is about the linear sigops issue.. guess what. solution is to not let transactions have thousands of sigops
yep thats right core actually allow a block to be filled with just 5tx of bloated sigops.. reduce the limit to being around a limit to allow atleast 1000tx instead of 5 means that less sigops per tx can be performed = no sigops problem


but to get to the topic
it was jsut social drama distraction to sway people into accepting a centralised controller of the protocol so that commercial networks can be implemented and push people off bitcoins network that dont want commercial networks.

P.S if your admiration and defense of this group is purely in spirit of hopes that one day you will get to have some income stream from running a LN hub... sorry. but you might want to look at the infographic you provided to see who will be the ones actually running the factories, hubs and watchtowers and getting the income to repay DCG
remember blockstream are inDEBT to DCG to a tune of many millions. they really needed to push for making bitcoin compatible with LN so that they can start giving DCG returns on investment. this is why the devs paid by investors have been so loud to say that blockchains cant scale/dont work and how non blockchains are are future... (so that goes against your pretense that devs love bitcoin, when devs have been pushing against bitcoin and for alternative networks)

i see what your saying that pool C would
change:
block 600000 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
block 600001 pool b
to
block 600000 pool c:  TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1poolcaddr 1btc
block 600001 pool c
block 600002 pool c

which would prevent
block 600003 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
because tx123 is spent at 600000 back to 1poolcaddr


but if pool C gave up at 600002 and sat back and had a coffee thinking job done game over...
here is what can happen
block 600000 pool a: TX123 1poolcaddr 1btc->1gamblingsite 1btc
block 600001 pool b
block 600002 pool a
block 600003 pool a
thus pool A and B re-orged back to the original 600000 and then continued on their merry way as if poolC never occured

meaning that pool C would need to continue way way way passed 600002 just to ensure pools A and B didnt re-org back and reconfirm TX123 with the gambling site

how multisig works
you both then make a separate private/public keys
1deisikr4nd0m4ddr355  \
                                     >=bc1qD31s1kfri3nd
1fr13ndr4nd0m4ddr355 /

you both can calculate that your random PUBLIC keys BOTH created the bc1qD31s1kfri3nd address and you can both confirm its a real address as you both calculated it separately
again neither of you know/provided the private keys to each other
but both have the public info to check the address is real.

..
as for a separate situation of just wanting to prevent people funding addresses they mistakenly mistyped/misspelled... there is no real way.
because if you start implementing a system where people can get coins out of an address that a person does not have a private key of.. then thats just going to cause alot of hacking.

the only way to stop this is to prevent typo's... NOT allow a way to get funds from addresses which people dont have priv keys for.. but just a way to double check with other parties that an address is actually an active address

problem is that even if a pool goes back and rehashes/re-orgs a block to exclude a losing bet..
that losing bet just becomes TEMPORARILY unconfirmed again.. and another pool will pick up that 'losing bet' thats suddenly become unconfirmed.. and reconfirm it into their block later

EG
block 600000 pool a: TX123
block 600001 pool b

imagine malicious pool c came in with a rhashed/re-org'ed the chain to 600002 height that ignored TX123
block 600000 pool c
block 600001 pool c
block 600002 pool c

pool A would just make a block later to re-add tx123 ..
block 600003 pool a: TX123

thus pool C wont simply make a chain that ignore tx123 and thats it job done, relax and have coffee.. stop at block 600002
pool C will have to continue to hash away and ensure no other pool gets a chance to re-add tx123 later.
thus its a continual cost for C to keep up this game purely to try to keep tx123 from entering the blockchain later

hense why the 'losing bet' needs to be a significant amount of value for it to be worthy for pool C to continue the pressure to prevent tx123 ongoing.

which is where people say the incentive to mess around with a chain purely to ignore a couple transactions is not big enough, as it takes much longer than just the time of the initial rehash/re-org. the malicious pool has to keep it up for a long time and maybe do many re-orgs if tx123 did appear in competing pools blocks

yes. you can for instance use the same time locks that LN uses(without neding to use LN) so that you stipulate that you, yourself cannot touch the funds for X time (allowing the other person to spend within the time without fear that you are fake paying them by you claiming as soon as it confirms) thus giving them time to spend it

there are other options too


changing the network to make all addresses behave in a certain manner that allows confirmed transactions to become unconfirmed. or to allow people to double spend is bad. but i dont think thats what the OP is asking for.
instead voluntarily putting funds into a multisig which 2 people volunteer to use as their escrow between themselves. where the 2 parties are the deciders. . then that is an option that is available now without network changes needed and not causing centralisation.

the reason i say you deny it is because you intentionally flip flop. one minute you admit it and you admire cores actions, the next you deny it even happened. which is where i keep telling you to do your research and then just pick one of your narratives and stick to it.. as it has become boring to repeatedly have to reply to either your flip or your flop. because it just seems your more interested in causing the flip flops for social distraction

..
anyways
devs should provide an option. and then users should decide.. WITHOUT FEAR of being thrown off the network purely for opposing an option.

if an option does not get approval WITHOUT network throw off's.. so be it. that option simply does not activate. no harm no foul
(EG core should have walked off with tail between legs with their 35% approval, and then come back with an improved compromised version that would have got approval WITHOUT needing to do mandated throw offs)
..
the issue is:
devs dont even provide a VARIETY of options for users to choose. (its just a their road map or no other way)
devs throw other options off the network before an option even activates
devs throw people off the network that dont opt for the version the devs prefer.

also the link you provided PROVES that devs were throwing off segwit2x nodes off the network before segwit2x even got a chance to grow a vote to even have the option of an activation.
and the UASF proved that users got thrown off the network BEFORE segwit1x got activation

...
after an activation. fine. if there is too much orphan drama or ddos spamming bad blocks then fine ban nodes. AFTER ACTIVATION. but throwing people off BEFORE activation purely to get a fake approval vote.. that is not consensus

and that is the thing i have been saying all along.. but wee all know you prefer CORE to remove opposers to fake approval because you love core dominance/dictatorship

P.S
segwit2x nodes would have accepted segwit1x rules so throwing 2x nodes off the network was ZERO percent about security. and 100% about core only wanting 1x activated)
..

thus CORE were in 100% control of what got activated.
yep throwing people off the network BEFORE activation. is not protecting the network because at the point of throwing off the network the feature was not even active to of caused issues. the throwing off was purely to get rid of opposers, to then fake increase approval of a feature only core wanted.

no one should be thrown off a network before the vote is complete

..
again for the umpteenth time.. learn consensus
consensus is NOT throw people off the network to gain approval count
consensus is gain approval count(without throwing people off network) or it just doesnt activate if no majority is found

try to atleast learn consensus and why its a big deal in regards to how satoshis invention is so revolutionary. and how core bypassed it for thier own purposes

you dont need to share a private key..
thats what multisig is about.

in simple terms you have a private key.. the recipient has a private key.
you both only provide the PUBLIC key of each. and a multisig is an address that allows any of those to spend the funds within it.
meaning you dont get to know the recipients privat key and he doesnt get to know yours. it just allows more than one spender to spend independantly without giving away private keys

you get to also stipulate how many people are needed to spend. hense a 1 of 2 means out of 2 chosen people only one is needed to spend the funds. thus allowing equal oppertunity to spend the funds. thus if the recipient does not spend it, you can get it back

the result is exactly what you want. funds are put into an address which you or the recipient can then claim.. EG the recipient can claim or you can claim(refund)

both things are possible now
but lets deal with the second one

imagine you set up a 1-of-2 multisig (only one signer is needed)
you pay into that address and if the recipient then does not move the funds. out of the multisig within a timescale you can then spend them back to yourself

no protocol changes are needed to do this

anyone spending $3.5k must know that if service needs to charge $3.5k then its not that successful.. hense why it needs to charge so much just to stay afloat

its the simple scam
"i can make you get $5000 an hour"
how
"gimme $5000 an hour and ill tell them how to make $5000 an hour"

scammers cant make profit from real methods so resort to making money through advice which wont yield results.
if the advice yielded results then those giving it wont need to be paid to give it as they themselves would be using their own advice to cover their costs

successful people dont charge because they know they can still make profit without charging people. they are also successful for even giving out free stuff because even by creating competition from others using the free stuff the ones giving it out can still make money from using thier own methods

i feel sorry for those that pay thousands thinking they are getting something of value

doomad your boring and just flip flopping

time to move on from reading your core defender speaches.
the history can be found and people will read it. no point in you trying to deny it and argue the opposite.
have a nice life and i hope you find something else to social drama about. as its obvious you care not for bitcoin but only care for a commercialised group

BIPS that CORE moderate <- emphasis

the issue is that core removed fee priority mechanisms to force in a fee war where people are now paying more onchain. this is the ploy to advertise and direct people into being pushed to use LN because its too expensive to stay independant on bitcoins network

imagine the only transport route were cars. core are setting up toll roads and then offering a cheap bus/train network. thus making it real hard for people to want to remain having their own car, and then coming out with the adverts about how buses and trains are so much better and faster and cheaper so everyone should ditch ownership of cars and use commercial buses/trains instead

doomad.. DO YOUR RESEARCH

august 1st was a contentious fork to disconnect nodes that disagreed with wanting segwitx1..
(to falesly improve the % approval of segwit by only showing approval nodes/pools)

then they disconnected the segwit2x nodes to further fake the approval% of segwit1x

there was no true consensus of segwit1x because CORE threw people off the network to fake an agreement count


consensus is and should not be about throwing people off the network to fake an agreement
consensus should be about no one gets thrown off before activation. if there is no majority agreement then a feature simple does not activate

core got the activation not by majority agreement. but by throwing people off the network to get a faked agreement by counting less voters by ignoring those objecting

the nodes that were seen as not objecting were mainly nodes that were told were 'compatible' . EG were told even their abstaining would be treated as agreeing

any way. you seem to want core dominance and central control where core always win by deceptive consensus bypass techniques.

funny thing

those against scaling BITCOIN
are the ones that want users to not use the bitcoin network, and instead lock funds up to custodians and pay fee's for payments on a different network that are not immutable and not guaranteed to be immutable
and where the fee's for actual bitcoin transactions are going to be high enough to sway people to not want to settle bitcoin transactions, but instead convert to altcoins..

seems the OP of this topic is pushing too hard to try making it sound like scaling bitcoin should be avoided
pretty sad the depths that those who dont want bitcoin to scale will go to

but here is the subtle point th OP just admitted to. thinking that "core should compromise".. which is his mindset saying to himself that he knows and justifies that core CONTROL the changes

what he next will admit is how the main devs of core are actually partners with the names mentioned in his conspiracy
follow the money

DCG -> bloq -> gavinA
DCG -> blockstream -> main core devs
DCG -> bitcoinj -> hearne
DCG -> blockchain -> BCH - > craig
DCG -> blockstream -> hyperledger (governments crypto project)
hyperledger -> hearne

you have not done much research.
have a nice month

seeing as your comparing bitcoin to paypal shows how little you know
then by you not understanding how mining farms function shows you dont understand their 'survival' methods
you really are stuck in 2 dimensional highschool level theories

it might be worth you researching more and theorising less

well you just continue looking at chart data and think thats all you ned to look at.
while smarter people look at real causations and real events.

but i do find it funny how you made a meme that trend anals(TA) but then you flip flop to then think the price is just based on price
without understanding where peoples common support levels come from

trend anals that only look at the price are the foolish people that ignore technicals.
it really might be worth you looking beyond chart data

seems your trying too hard to justify all the variations of "dollar" value
you win no awards defending the dollar.

and if you think the pound is to blame for why dollars value against it changes.
then you have to explain the changes of the other 100+ countries

oh wait. its all the other countries faults. i get it you love and adore the dollar and you want to wrap the dollar in cotton wool and protect it.
good luck

1. is not a sudden reaction..
2. the UNDERLYING VALUE is not the same as PRICE
3. the mining dynamic is not a predictor of ATH or sudden movements daily.
4. the cost of mining/overtaken profit link just reading the links wording suggests they have no clue*
5. might be worth you going deper and researching beyond high school level stuff

*i clicked the link and seen data of 2018. and yet if you compare it to 2019 its actually cheaper to mine in january than it is to min in september 2018.. so might be worth you updating your sources.
tip. not only did hashrate drop in october..(lower electric) but as of christmas, new EFFICIENT miners were released which even further dropped the cost.

steep learning curve ahead of you

money creation is done on computers.
banks 'cost' of then creating the physical form is minimal which is covered not by bankers costs. but by public returns
we can argue chicken and egg all year but the physical cost is negligable
EG why is the average bank account at $24k  but banks only want people withdrawing $500 a day
so that the $25k only has a cost of(using your numbers) $2.50 per $25k = $0.002 of circulated 'money' which doesnt cost the banks anything due to the fact that government bonds and other things play into it. again banks pay nothing. its people that pay the negligible amount.



lets word it this way
FIAT  [||||||||||||||||||||||||||||]
PoW  [||||||||||||||||||||||||||||]
PoS   [||||||||||||||||||||||||||||]

red=cost of creation/acquisition cost (mix of physical cost of creation. and previous cost from pure purchase second hand)
orange=laws that enforce utility
green=speculation about utility

by the way, fiat is not stable.
did you know with the US dollar. someone in new york city gets paid a minimum of $15 an hour where as someone outside the city gets paid $7.50
yep same fiat, but different locations yield different values.
even forex changes alot. a decade ago £1 got you $1.65 now its $1.31
prices of bread change often.
people being used to the volatility does not = stable.. it just means they stopped caring about its movement and just pay whatever price they see as they think fiat is the only currency they can use so have no choice

gold sits on 2 markets
commodity and asset.
no one refutes that bitcoin is not a commodity. i even for years have been trying to tell people that bitcoin is unlike gold commodity.
but the gold asset. thats a different market.

seems you do have more to learn

yep you definitely have more to learn

people are not paying for a service. that is your mis understanding of the difference between the price/value/fee