^ highlighting the flaw even at step 1

as i clarified in PM to not ramble on in this topic
my point was by having the ability to drop

when the peers interrogate each other(step 2) after dropping the tx.
the peer in "flowchart" will again request the same TX ,,,,, and then drop it (rinse and repeat)

then....
when a block comes along. that includes reference to the tx that the peer in flowchart keeps dropping. then the peer yet again asks other peers that same dang tx again because...
drum roll.....
its not in its mempool

which over all means the same tx keeps getting broadcast and dismissed more than once

all because a node is allowed to drop tx's due to silly things like customised relay limits

the solution:
is remove the "drop" for silly reasons like min relay
then the tx's are accepted.. and then everyone gets the tx at first go around. without repeats.
and without needing to retry again even after getting a compact block.. because
drum roll.....
the tx IS in the mempool.
thus allowing a block to be verified quick because the node RETAINS the tx
AND has not caused as much bandwidth usage because it hasnt dropped tx's to need to re pickup tx's

big picture:
the whole point of relaying unconfirmed transactions to everyone
the whole point of non mining nodes having a mempool
is to KEEP transactions so that when a compact block comes along nodes can verify it quickly without causing latency/propagation delays from asking for tx's.


by allowing "drop" and by saying its ok for peers to have different transaction sets.. is just saying its ok to make the network work harder by having nodes request data repeatedly.

the only time a tx should really be dropping a tx is if the signatures fail or the UTXO is spent.... not because of random user preference

so get rid of the user preference and then everyone gets to have a full mempool of tx's by default.. to then not cause latency issues at the compact block validation event and not cause bandwidth issues with re-grabs

P.S to HairyMaclairy
i am not even a Bcash guy.. so fail on you
but you much like most kiss asses do love to think if core dev gets poked. your sheep defense response is to folow a script
about bcash

you need to open your mind that if someone loves bitcoin. but finds a flaw or does not agree with how a dev is messing with bitcoin.. it might be because they person poking at a dev actually cares more about bitcoin than the dev does.

oh and if you want to believe that gmax is a poor guy, not making money.


yep $101mill / 9 founders = more than a chicken nugget... so dont feel pity for him like he is a starving coder on his last penny only coding bitcoin out of love

sorry gmax. i know i playd some drum rolls. buy im not gonna play you a violin... seriously YOU playing the poor guy card!?

there is a mining:market dynamic paradigm that plays out
people always look for th cheapest ways to get bitcoin. so yes there is a correlation between market:mining during low speculation

firstly it isnt an instant reaction as soon as a block reveals its hashrate the price of mining calculates and markets react.. its a bit slower
EG octobers hashrate curve led to novembers market reaction

secondly its more about a underlying value (below the speculative price) support. so it wont help you much predict the next speculative hype.

however when you see the hashrate move and has a sustained period of a certain level. the markets react.

people will always find the cheapest way to get bitcoin, so that could be mining when hashrate is low in comparison or markets when hashrate is high, but they end up pulling each other up and down to equalibriate themselves in a low speculative time

in short right now based on mining cost. 104*average exa hash rate=bottomline market support

so if market prices are near the result you know its a good price.. if the market price is way up above, then the price is too high and not sustainable and has high chance of coming back down

the magic number 104 is based on the mining cost of the majority at present. using the most efficient costs. so its the bottomline value.

this number can change periodically when different batches come out that are more efficient. but instead of doing the complicated maths i just simplified it down to the easiest representation of the mining cost math so that people can easily calculate costs in one easy calculation.

he's not facing bankrupcy.
a certain guy in another pool (BTCC) lost his job when BTCC were on brink of bankruptcy and now samson mow is on a distraction drama crusade to hide his own misery.
come on.. has anyone actually looked into BTCC and seen the difference of BTCC from 2017-2018
anyone question why samson is now blockstream and by bobby lee is now litecoin orientated instead of BTCC orientated

bitmain is making money. they are delivering out new rigs this week.

i also predicted in october that things would change for november, all i needed to do was see the hashrate curve of the old asics being shut down and sold off cheap before they became worthless. to then see it would play out against the market:mining dynamic soon after. it had nothing to do with altcoins. it was to do with prepping for next gen asics

anyway back to discussing bitmain
the nxt gen are designed, tested and manufactured, meaning they dont need the temp staff they hired. just to cover the excess temp work needed.

as for the side drama of altcoins. thats like going on vacation for a few months with a few foreign coins in your pocket. and now finding out that you dont need or want them... its not life changing. its just having a few foreign coins that ar not worth spending

meanwhile he is still getting funds from different sources and still producing asics

flip:
flop:
^ here you are saying "subject to" meaning you know nodes can configure settings and end up holding different data.
you try to hint everyone has consistant data and near same... but then say people can put restrictions and configure...

meaning this makes mempools not have same data and thus NEED data, thus need to check other peers nodes to see who has what to then get the data needed.

i know your meaningless tests just spin up 8 nodes and look for a pre minisketch stat and a post minisketch stat... but how about actually configure the 8 nodes to have different "restrictions" and "configurations" and then see the difference compared to your meaningless test of spinning 8 nodes of same config
after all its you that says there is no fixed consensus of config and no way you WANT there to be a config consensus that fixes everyone to using the same settings... so actually do some realistic tests where the configs of the 8 nodes are random and not the same if you really believe theres no way they can be the same

hint if node A has 1,2,3,4,5,7
hint if node B has 1,2,4,5,7,8
hint if node C has 2,3,5,6,7,8
your mini sketch wont have A just check(interrogate) B and then not have to bother with checking C.. because B does have 3. but doesnt have 6. so minisketch then needs to check C and realise it needs 6 from C
so mini sketch wont result in only needing to check just one node and that is the end of it. minisketch will still check other nodes too

---

flip:
flop
dont run tests under perfect circumstances of out of 8 nodes 7 nodes hold same data so one node only needs to check one node to complete and thats it. realise that all 8 nodes will have different tx's and so all 8 will still need to be checked.. remember you said it there isnt and cant be a consensus of all nodes accepting the same transactions blah

also think big picture about ALSO compact blocks and bloom filtering. imagine not just initial relay "exclusivity" of just a small data set of INV.. for initial relay, but also solving the wider issue of getting transactions that a mempool wont have if it were to get a compact block
.. what i am saying is with minisketch if indeed is less data than old methods.. try it against getting the best accumulation of mempool transactions so that compact blocks can actually be accomplished

or.. are you leaving that for 4 years time due to "conservative"
no wonder after 3 years things have not really progressed due to scaling. if you think a proposed feature should only be used for an exclusive purpose. and only has benefit on optimal conditions, which you only test it under.

try some out of box thinking

i will make one apology
i am sorry i dont kiss your ass or treat you as a king.
but you have plenty of ass kissers so maybe you do need someone thats not just gonna agree and accept what you offer as the ultimate solution.. even if the solution is for "exclusive use" in one small utility and only under certain use-case

eg "segwit solves malleability"...
nope it doesnt solve malleabillity.. it "exclusively" offers a non malleable tx format IF people only use this "exclusive" tx format, by which that "exclusive" tx format needs to avoid certain opcodes, or else people could malleate tx's that use the certain format

so i apologise for not just being an ass kisser, but an echo chamber of kissing, slurping and cheers does not help critical thinking

"outlets" pfft

more easily if comparing bitcoin to gold

187,000 tonnes of gold vs 17.5mill btc currently existing /mined

1btc = 187,000 tonnes / 17.5m btc
1btc= 0.0106857142857143 tonnes
1btc= 0.0106857142857143 tonnes * 32150.7 troy ounces
1btc= 343.5531942857147 ounces *$1278
1btc= $439,060.98

pessimistic person sees a half empty glass.........
optimistic person sees its half filled glass......
realist person sees its not empty, and even if it was. atleast they have a glass

meanwhile anyone notice BTCC disappear..

funny that samson mow (ex-employee of BTCC) is hyping up social drama but not mentioning his own job loss situation

bitmain wanted to experiment with getting into node development of altcoins. AI and other divergent industries. but now they want to get back to basics of doing what they originally done.
as the article infers it only had 1000 staff a year ago and took on a load of temporary staff during the event of creating new asics and try out different industries. so ofcourse staff numbers would go back down.

so not big news. its the usual trimming down that occurs to streamline a business.

but real funny still how samson mow has been very quiet around the BTCC disappearance. even funnier that coindesk. a partner of BTCC, could not even have the independence to mention BTCC

.....
meanwhile bitmain have sent out their first batch of next gen ASICs which will be delivered this week so expect hashrates to rise and the market:mining equilibrium to play out

"cant pay we will take it away"
shows how much she "owns" if people can just come in and take thing from her(bailiffs)
show how much she "owns" if people can refuse to give her it(banks)

id love to see a bailiff try to acquire someones bitcoins. or a bank try to freeze a persons private key.. oh wait they cant. because THEY dont own it.. only you do

^ FAIL
when you sell a car for FIAT. you dont own FIAT. you hold FIAT. but the FIAT is not yours.
its under licence by a government. they can take it from you without notice. they can freeze accounts they can tax it. they can do what they like, because its theirs.

with bitcoin you own the private key that secures that you have full ownership control of the bitcoin linked to the private key

i dare you to have a bitcoin private key and a bank account. and truly ask yourself. who controls what
go on try to move your fiat out of an ATM for more than $500 amount.

try spending a substantial amount ($10k) fiat via a bank account without the bank asking questions.
you do not own FIAT. they are just letting you handle it under their licence terms

try crossing a state/country border with $10k see how much FIAT you get to own without question

---

as for saying bitcoin is a nothing value.

bitcoin has a cost value.
im not talking about speculative price of the volatile market. im talking about the underlying value. the cost of its creation.

PoS coins for instance have no underlying value. as the underlying cost is zero. but bitcoin does have a underlying value.
you might wanna research that.

FIAT (not talking about market rate of loaves it would buy or rate compared to other currencies on forex) fiats underlying value is of the cost in its creation too. which is things like yes the debt (mortgage/credit agreement) that created the promissory note. but also the minimum wage laws that value a $7.50 as being an hours worth of sweat labour

.. one thing i do find funny.
a patent /copyright is just an idea. yet you argue people do have ownership of something. even if its just an idea.. but then try to say bitcoin idea is not real........ pick a hypocrisy and stick with it. you cant be right on both sides of a table especialy if a patent/copyright may not even come with any creation cost

bitmain fired a team of software developers concentrating on a bitcoin cash wallet........
....... yawn.. (altcoin drama)

meanwhile bitmain is delivering tonnes of next gen asics this week. but shhh dont tell the public

i came across this point


all those stuff.... but then he flattens his own argument mid statement with


thats like saying. no you cant make money here, but its a sweet money earner

. pure comedy

---

now to make a proper point
bitcoin is not just this forum. its a currency that is world wide.
thousands of businesses use it
if you want to earn money:
apply for a job working for companies in the industry
offer your skills and talent
start your own business offering products and services for bitcoin

there are many ways to earn bitcoin.
find a wholesaler/dropshipper. list a few products priced in bitcoin and sell them for profit
learn the technicals of bitcoin. become an expert and get paid being a public speaker
if there's people in your area interested in bitcoin, be an event organiser (much like business meetups("business networking events"))
trade/invest btc for profit
offer locals a hand to hand exchange for fiat/btc where you charge a small convenience fee
become a 'tutor' for other students that want to learn about bitcoin/blockchains.

whatever way you can think of to earn FIAT apply that logic to bitcoin

here goes

instead of needing a main bank account for business B and then having to pay out funds when requested by each department. and needing auditors to check the validity. and needing teams of staff communicate to ensure 2 decision makers dont both pay the same department(mistakes).. blockchains can help

1.imagine the company has $1m cashflow in its account. and say an R&D gets 10%. instead of handing out $100k and then need auditors to check that the R&D are using the funds wisely or check the department are not then later asking the saturday 'intern/temp" staff to wire more under a ruse that there was a mistake in getting $100k (thus R&D now get $200k). a blockchain can be used as the funds request/auditor and fund spending monitor system all in one.

imagine having a altcoin of 1m coins. the company can hand out the coins to departments. and then the departments then can 'claim' fiat using the coins given. where by a note is added to the transaction at exchange to show the purpose.

now each department can easily request funds without needing human decision makers(cost reduction: less staff)
(each quarter the R&D gets an automatic 100k coins tx sent to them)

now each department no longer has access to the main companies account (better security: less syphoning funds)
(R&D will not get $200k because its easier to spot that it already received 100k coin. and at exchange for fiat will also pick up if they are suddenly trying to get $200k where they should only have $100k)

now each department can easily show spending without needing human auditors(cost reduction: less staff)
(R&D at exchange 'spend' 2k coins with a note 'Jeff's monthly salary account xxxxxx bank branch yyyyy')

now the coins can be smart contracted needing 3 people to sign off on transactions, without needing to involve banks to set up special bank access stuff

the company can see exactly where funds went because they can trace transactions of a blockchain. where a department got 100k coins and how those 100k then moved around in the company

blockchains are in simple terms a relationship database. but made in such a way that no individual can just edit the data as their copy of the data is only editing their copy as there is no master copy.
the company has multiple copies which can all independently check that they are all holding the same data. and flag up any instances of malicious edits, knowing which department is editing it.

yep.
but its the fault of the exchanges not the whales, and here is why

1. many small exchanges follow like shrimp(sheep) the bigger exchanges.. so whales dont need to have funds on
 each exchange to cause global price changes.. they just let the shrimp react to a direction change

2. exchanges implementing KYC usually deter shrimp/shark level investers as its just a hassle. so instead of having a shark army  of users to counter the whale. it just ends up with a few shrimp/sharks that end up just following the whale hoping for a few nibbles along the way

3. exchanges are still not implementing high grade security, and are hiding behind fake "virtual office" addresses and proxies, thus shrimp/sharks are not willing to trust using exchanges. thus leading to the main 'volume' makers being the exchanges partners/insiders or buddies of the exchange

4. continuing from point 3. the volume is not number of individual (1 trade per person) number. its actually a collective number where say 50k coin could actually be just 2k coin traded 25 times in a day. thus the amount of individual coin exchanged is lower than people actually think

firstly trying to get mempools synced is meant to be about if everyone has the same tx set before a pool mines a block, then all that needs to be sent as a confirmed block is the headers and list of txid's. thus reducing the data needed to be sent when a confirmed block is created.

but here lays the issues
1. "the tx fee freemarket flaw"
this is where certain nodes drop certain tx's at DIFFERENT dust/min relay levels. meaning different people will have different mempool sets.

so trying to get people to keep every tx again. is counter intuitive to the whole drop tx if under dust/min relay fee 'free market'
easier solution is get rid of the tx free market and implement a consensus (all node agree on) fee structure so when tx's are relayed initially they all keep the same tx's in mempool and not have to drop tx's using fee freemarket. to then suddenly need to grab hundreds of transactions from X and hundreds of tx from Y AGAIN

2. distributed mempool
highlighting not the freemarket part. but the individual picky nodes. some nodes such as those that are "downstream filtered"(gregs buzzword) non-segwit nodes dont relay non-segwit unconfirmed tx's,

also some nodes that are run by pools fill their blocks with their own zero fee tx data which they dont relay the tx's out pre confirm purely to cause latency issues for thir competition(BTCC pool done this a few years back). so it wont solve the issue because different nodes have different ways of doing things.

i do find it funny that it was these very same devs that wanted a fee freemarket by removing a fee priority mechanism to make individualising mempools, that are now seeing the flaw in it.. even if they dont want to admit it the cause/effect on their implementation

but allowing nodes to relay tx's and drop them due to "fee free market" but then have to interrogate nodes to list their entire mempools(actually causing more bandwidth) and pick up the tx's AGAIN(more bandwidth again).. is silly..

imagine it 3 different nodes with sat 5 tx(out of in each of thier mempools due to different tx fee level preferences
1,2, a,b,c
1,2,3,4,c
1,a,b,c,d

they all initially did get 1,2,3,4,a,b,c,d at initial relay.. but freemaket let them drop certain tx.
now the third node has to ask the first node for the list.. 1,2,a,b,c (more data than initial relay)
now the third node has to ask the first node for the missing.. 2 (more data than initial relay)
.
now the third node has to ask the second node for the list.. 1,2,3,4,c (more data than initial relay)
now the third node has to ask the second node for the missing.. 3,4 (more data than initial relay)

now the second node has to ask the first node for the list.. 1,2,a,b,c (more data than initial relay)
now the second node has to ask the first node for the missing.. a,b (more data than initial relay)
.
now the second node has to ask the third node for the list.. 1,a,b,c,d (more data than initial relay)
now the second node has to ask the third node for the missing.. a,b,d (more data than initial relay)

now the first node has to ask the second node for the list.. 1,2,3,4,c (more data than initial relay)
now the first node has to ask the second node for the missing.. 3,4 (more data than initial relay)
.
now the first node has to ask the third node for the list.. 1,a,b,c,d (more data than initial relay)
now the first node has to ask the third node for the missing.. d (more data than initial relay)

the solution is much more simple.. get rid of the free market that lets nodes drop tx's in the initial relay. thus they would ALL have them all first go-around. without having to interrogate EACH connected node, after dropping.. because their would be no drop in the first place.

3. issue
"Minisketch generalizes this by sending various types of ‘sums’ of the data. The result is that with N different sums, you can find N differences … As long as the number of differences between the sets is not more than the number of ‘sums’ sent, minisketch will always succeed in finding all the differences."

lets call (the node interrogation) or as they call it 'sending sums'  X
lets call bloom filtring the missing transactions Y
X)now the first node has to ask the third node for the list.. 1,a,b,c,d (more data than initial relay)
y)now the first node has to ask the third node for the missing.. d (more data than initial relay)

by getting rid of the "free market" and getting back to a consensus fee priority formulae/structure that everyone follows means that X is not needed. and Y becomes a smaller percentage of missing tx's that it becomes insignificant to need X

what makes me laugh though. is then saying that nodes can then do 16/24 connections instead of 8.. i laugh because imagine having to do the X command(sending sums to 2-3 times more nodes.....(facepalm)

again solution is much more simply. get rid off the freemarket that allows individualised mempools at the initial relay, to then not need to re-interrogate nodes and re-relay transactions.. then you will get to conect to 16-24 nodes as oppose to 8. and no need extra bandwidth and commands/sums playing around.

(firstly im not into drugs but ill use the analogy)

you cannot give a court summons to a plant
you cannot give a court summons to a piece of code

bitcoins, drugs and alcohol are not illegal. india cannot make them illegal.
its not their jurisdiction.
india can make HUMANS become criminals for doing a certain thing. but they cannot make drugs or bitcoin criminals.

so its not about making something legal/illegal. its about making HUMANS not allowed to be FOUND doing something. to then suddenly change and then making it about making HUMANS then able to be FOUND doing something in a certain way.

which is where HUMANS will find a way around the rules thus making HUMAN control laws redundant.
EG
drug dealers using kids under 12years old to do the dealing, because kids wont get arrested for petty drug "crimes"

the craig wright drama was 2016
the ver drama was 2015-2017

any drama they caused in 2018 is nothing to do with bitcoin. but their respective altcoins.

so as the title says... whats the 2018 drama of bitcoin

the biggest bitcoin drama queen of 2018 is.............
the market cap

the reasons:
1. its a meaningless number as the $ is not even real $ supporting the number
2. anyone can make an alt with a trillion coins and buy 1 con for $5 and overtake the market cap for just, as i said $5
3. yet masses of people follow it and believe it has value and are obsessed with talking about it

(i know the vote is about people, but peoples sentiment seems to have more people foolishly following an empty number than the names in the vote)

also the names in the vote are names of people unrelated to bitcoin, but related to managing machines and altcoins.. so seems the names picked are as about appropriate as saying samson mow or butterin

so to me the voting options are limited to the same crap options as england had for "britains got talent" the year a dog was voted as the most talents brit.

none of that proves anything.. now your just posting the whole internet on this forum, but nothing relating to creating bitcoin

up to the point of post 129. i still did not give a crap about who craig cobb or james was in rgards to their nazi/social life.
my only interest was really about could you prove linkage to the satoshi identity. which you still fail to.
i only mentioned the prove craig cob proves james is not timestamp.. as a thing that im not personally interested in but others are and it seemed you just prefered to rattle on about faming up about james nazi/non bitcoin creator life

as regards to your picture. all i seen was a balding guy near a kids swimming pool taking pictures.. (i wont mention my judgements about what someone would be doing there doing that)
but i did not see a guy holding a piece of paper up saying "i am timestamp" or shoe on head... so again not caring or being interested in the social drama aspect. i just notched it up as "probably just a google image grab.."
yea the social life of craig cobb is of such lack of interest there was no need to have searched up craig cobb. as its of no significance to the topic or me.

but yea now i see a resemblance to the many police and courtroom 'mugshots'.. yet normally when people ask for proof of ID, holding up something that says i am user..X. is normal etiquette to quash the normal response of "he could have got the pic that from the internet" as a pic of craig cobb is still not proof of craig cobb being timestamp..
your social life was not worth the rsearch tim to google. so i was expecting a pic of actual meaning.

but lets drop the matter and just play along your craig cobb.
so you have CC
then im guessing it must be a infatuation with james you have, by wanting to fame him up.
which just leaves it as.. for money or for love..
but dont bother answering that. im not interested in the answer. im just stating my opinion..

all that matters is not the social life of you or james. but the real proof that james is satoshi..
which you do really trip yourself up and fall into holes you dug yourself


satoshi is not those two guys either.
nor is he wright. nor is he dorian
(hes not american, not australian and not asian(proper word analysis shows more that satoshi cant be those, and cant be james... and i mean proper analysis.. not crap stuff like CC's weak attempts))

you can spend hours, days, months faming up lives of james...

but you have not proved the satoshi~james ties
im starting to think that you ar james faming yourself, but now with a minor tweak of that opinion that you might be either female and want to marry him.. or your male and gay and secretly inlove with him if indeed ur not james.

but the obsession with trying to fame up james.. is getting beyond a joke.. especially now you derailed your own topic to no longer prove a satoshi connection but just now want to flat out try faming james up as multiple people.

so either you are james trying to fame yourself up, or your unhealthily infatuated by him
.

you(as the timestamp persona) have as of yet done nothing to:
prove you received funds from satoshi
prove your not james (reveal your this craig guy, via photo or the old 'shoe on head' video proof)
prove james is satoshi

you just seem to want to talk about james life, as if it has meaning.

so apart from
1. you are james
2. your inlove with james...
i have still been inclined to think this is all some big faming/marketing ploy for "commercial value". EG im guessing you/him probably both, probably one of you. wants to make money out of fame unrelated to bitcoins creation.. but under the marketing ploy pretence it 'may have' connection.. just for some extra attention