as for windfury's theory

knowing bitcoinJ, classic, xt, unlimited, and other diverse nodes had NO contentious code to disrupt anything, because they didnt instigate any contentious event to attempt to inact a false consensus on the bitcoin network.
(no mandated deadlines to throw core off the network pre consensus)

it appears that windfury theory is more about social drama distractions to make people not look at core devs(those who do and have made bitcoin network changes) by trying to get people to discuss social drama of people that didnt cause any actual code controversy, but were part of social controversy

EG scammer craig wright has nothing to do with the bitcoin network (hence why i dont care about CW because he is just some non-influencer and none participant of bitcoin. he is just some social distraction glory hound/scammer, that should be ignored and not talked about)

it also appears that windfuries theory is more about trying to sway people to think diversity is bad because anything thats not core based must be 'nsa' based

yet if we take windfuries theory about hearn (via google) then he also should include wuille (via google) in the same regard

you have no clue
what you dont understand is the usage of throwing nodes off the network before activation is CONTENSIOUS
consensus is about nothing bad happening before activation, and only activating a feature when there is enough majority to AVOID a fork.
consensus is about not using contensious-forks to instigate a activation.


what you dont understand is the in the event of a minority left over AFTER a true consensus activation is not a fork. but a minority STALL. in short the small minority just stop validating blocks. they are not forked to a different network. they just stop relaying

you really do need to learn this stuff..
learn the byzantine generals issue. then look at how it was solved via the invention called bitcoin/blockchain

what your not learning is you strangely think the solution to the byzantine generals problem is about killing off the diverse generals until one leader is left..

seriously learn about consensus, byzantine generals and the real meaning of decentralisation... actually learn why bitcoin was so revolutionary


^ that statement i just quoted, is called CONTENTIOUS event. and nothing to do with consensus.
i do not deny that it could happen. i just have been repeatedly informing you that doing contentious forks to bypass/fake a consensus activation, is not what bitcoins purpose was about 2009-2013
the whole point of bitcoins invention and blockchains is to have a system where diversity can come to an agreement without fighting to then progress the rules and without creating an ultimate central leader..

atleast wake up
by the way.. the contentious event such as august first 2017 didnt need "users". it just needed the devs.. particularly the dev in control of the FIBRE network to ensure what information got from the pools through the ring fence of FIBRE to the users, was controlled.
so trying to shift the blame to users. who didnt write a single line of code, nor manually done anything to their node independently, shows that you are too deep into defending devs by shifting the blame.
even your flip flop about "compatibility" proves that users were not to blame.

so before doing anything else. do some research and sort out your flip flops and atleast try to stick with one narrative

need you forget the 2x was dropped in august.. even though the activation wasnt due until atleast november.

2x was a non event of fake choice.. many knew it was not a real viable option, and was just a ruse to simply try to get 1x opposers to accept 1x by saying 2x was an option.. right up to the date that 1x got adopted..

in a different topic u provided the link and you were very loudly proud of their attempts to kill off 2x


mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should be disconnected 3 months BEFORE an activation of those nodes bips
mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should disconnect BTC1  (Segwit2x) nodes 3 months before segwit2x activates

anyway. im done trying to translate ur flip flops. might be worth u doing some research on what bitcoin is all about and how bitcoin was invented to stay away from needing a "core"
and then maybe finally you can decide if ur a flip or a flop. and atleast stick with one narrative

but the whole point of bitcoins invention/revolutionary technology is that satoshi solved the problem of allowing rules to be followed and new rules adopted by decentralised individuals without needing a central leader, without mandates and without throwing off the network to get new feature activation.

seems some people forgot what consensus is(or never learned it) and have instead become devoted to those that abused/bypassed consensus because they feel that bitcoin needs leadership.

all in attempt to remove diversity and decentralisation. just so they can get centralisation and distribution(which is different than decentralisation)

the whole revolutionary thing about bitcoin is the no need of leadership. but that got eroded down as of 2013 onwards to th point we are at now.

by saying things need a central leader is ignoring what the consensus mechanism of solving byzantine generals issue was all about..

KYC should only be mandated if the service itself is handling FIAT and has to obide by FIAT rules. meaning its a registered money service business

as for KYC in general for p2p exchanges. it should be an option the seller should choose to ensure identity of th buyer so that the seller can provide identity of the buyer to banks..  to prove the buyer was the buyer, if the buyer tries to do chargeback scamming.

i see too many times that non-regulated exchanges demand KYC, under the pretense of trying to appear official, but in reality they are gathering info to sell that info on

anyway

gavin and hearns XT was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
gavins classic was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
hearns XT and bitcoinj was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
vers unlimited  was not a mandated activation force.. it was a try it or dont open choice
craig wright wrote no code and was not actually a bitcoin influencer(he was just a scammer)
the NYA sw2x was a false option to accept sw1x and then by default remove 2x

in short. social drama distractions purely to sway people into wanting core centralism, whether they knew it or not

^ doomad still has not learned consensus /byzantine generals issue. and still wants to pursue his mindset that core should control the network without community majority triggering the activations of new rules.
his viw is not of bitcoin as it was suppose to be 2009-2013.. but of the view of how bitcoin is now under control 2013-2019
which is the problem
he will continue to argue that bitcoin is now centralsied coded by one group, while then social dramatising (flip flopping) that its then not the case. meaning he is just wasting time with his flip flops..

though its clear what his deep down desire is.

foolish now to even keep talking to doomad as he will just continually perpetuate his belief that central control is what bitcoin was designed for, and will continue to ignore the whole consensus/byzantine generals thing that made bitcoin such a unique/innovative/revolutionary thing.

may doomad one day wake up to the purpose of blockchains.. or stay in his echo chamber of blockchains are useless... who knows. but no point trying to get him to do real research outside his echo chamber. as he seems too deep in it to even want to think independently

oh well
moving on

if i remember rightly people know which addresses hold the coins. its not like the blockchain is encrypted/hidden, so its transparent to see when coins moved. the article only really talked about COINS moving in march 2018, which was months after the correction from $20k.

the reality is the £20k figure was a fluke event itself, and the correction was a correction. thus both the rise up to $20k and the fall down from $20k were not bull and bear.. but at most considered cub and calve(small temporary)..

the real out of place out un expected event was the october 2018 downturn of ASIC hashpower due to selling off old asics but not 1-for-1 swapping for next gen. to keep hashrate up, which then caused the market:mining dynamic to play in to cause the market decline in november which coincided with novembers 2018 futures contracts sell off from a november 2017 contracts

thus 2018 had not rally anything to do with MTGox

hearn. wanted to offer different brands of full nodes
bitcoinj, bitcoin XT = diversity and decentralisation

hearn. wanted to offer blocks that would allow more transactions on the bitcoin network bitcoin growth/scaling

....
Pieter wuille wanted a new TX format that would:
allow people to lock funds up with a counterparty, thus reduce self control(more centralisation of funds)
push people off the network and into other networks

but hey. you will ignore that as you just want to talk about social drama, not reality of WHO wants centralisation

not to confuse the 2015 segwit2mb... with the 2017 segwit2x

the 2017 segwit2x which was promoted by DCG (NYA as you call it) was just a false flag. false choice. purely done to make people believe that there was an option to increase legacy on bitcoins mainnet.. but only if they allow segwit(1x) acceptance first

the reality was that 2x would never actually have got adopted as core designed and implemented code to REKT it as soon as segwit(x1) got its threshold
(go ask your buddy doomad for the link to the code. he is dead proud of cores(blockstram devs) efforts and was happy to advocate and promote his adoration for that agenda)

seeing as how the OP is just interested in social drama distractions.

hearn worked for google.. and it was google that sold certain apps to 3lettr agencies
guess who else worked for google.. pieter wuille (Mr. segwit)

i call B.S

th articles says that they only seen actual coins move in may 2018.. thus. actual coin movements of MAY 2018. were when the price had already CORRECTED down below $10k

in short MTGox did not cause the $20k->$6k correction,
the speculative correction caused the correction. and the MTGox funds just happen to sell right at the tail end of the correction

mr flip flop

if core want to change the rules.. and its core nodes that disconnect opposers. then its not the opposers that need to "rejoin by following the consensus rules again" because if your trying to twist your rhetoric to be about BEFORE activation.. then no rules have changed yet thus the opposers are and would be running the same rules.. OBVIOUSLY

the only condition where opposers would need to change anything to "follow the rules" (as if they are not following the rules).. is if the rules have changed.. thus AFTER
so its obvious your rant was talking about AFTER because thats the only time an opposer wont be "following the rules"

now...
getting to the point of before activation. WHERE RULES HAVE NOT CHANGED. if core are disconnecting nodes BEFORE cores bips activate then your nonsense about "rejoin by following rules" does not apply because the opposers were following the current rules, but were simply objecting and opposing cores FUTURE proposal
thus core nodes were not doing consensus. they were instead being contentious by throwing out nodes simply due to brand bias to fake approval by only having approval nodes left on the network, to get the bip activated.

you also rant about how you as a unique user have the free choice to disconnct whomever you like from your node. but as your link in an earlier post shows. it was not about unique users manually disconnecting nodes pre-vote deadline/pre activation. it was CODE that biasedly wanted to disconnect certain bitcoin node versions.
so you cant blame the users for manually disconnecting certain nodes. it was the devs who wrote code to automatically disconnect certain nodes, out of pure bias to ensure only segwit1x got activated.
and yes. core devs(blockstream devs more specifically) because of how FIBRE(mattblue) functions as the ringfense layer between mining pools and user nodes had the ultimate say in what data streams from pools to the majority of nodes
..
anyways, your obviously trying too hard to defend cores actions. so just keep it short and sweet. you love centralisation and you think the community should just sheep follow core or get thrown off the network

have a nice day
P.S you seem to be very emotional with all your insults. so i wonder what is behind your motives. why you are so hard nosed dedicated and devoted to wanting core centralisation.
let me guess.. youll flip flop about how consensus should not exist because now you believe that miners and users should not have a choice because that means that devs need others "permission" and your beliefs are that thre should be no permission..

to which ill tell you again.. learn true consensus

also if someone was to check post histories they would see that YOU are the one throwing out the majority of insults. but to address the concern you have about alternative clients being sheep. ill reword it to your buddies prefered buzzwords. seeing as you love their words
"compatible"
"downstream"
"filtered"
"outerlayer"
"not part of the peer-to peer relay layer"
"stripped"
"not quite full nodes"


this statement here proves you have no clue about satoshi's consensus solution to the byzantine generals issue. which made bitcoin so revolutionary

and why core bypassing it purely to gain dictatorship goes against the whole point of decentralisation..

.. but hey, your buddy groups echo chamber is that of wanting a commercial network that does not use a blockchain(LN). so i can see why you dont care to learn about why blockchains and byzantine generals issues and consensus, and why such are not important to you.

you might aswell just go play around on a LN forum and really show your admiration for it, as your wasting ur time on a bitcoin forum by showing your obvious lack of care and understanding of what made bitcoin bitcoin

^ more flip flops

here he goes again about thrown off the network AFTER activation.. yet he ignores the whole point of PUSHING people off the network BEFORE activation.

consensus is about continually following ACTIVE rules. and then choosing what new features should become active..
the morals of pushing people off the network before a new feature choice is made. is NOT consensus.. its contentious

anyway ill let him flip flop for another year in his echo chamber. as its only wasting his time by him being stuck where he is.


gotta love the warped mind he has
in essense... you can rejoin the network if you give up your objection and code your node to flag that you desire some feature activating.(meaning only option is to show agreement)

.
so where is the consensus CHOICE to actually oppose a feature activation (imagine it being malicious code) if the only options are accept cores BIP or get thrown off BEFORE the bip even activates.

yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

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