probably better you hope they dont.
you do realise in all my wall of text in first reply i never named the altcoin.
yet you have made a topic naming them and in each most named it again. and again

the website crpto index picks up on discussions about certain things and if a coin is named multiple times it gets flagged as being potentially popular.

so the more you mention it the worse it gets toward what you actually want. which is for it to fizzle out.
so stop talking about it.

multiple factors:
mining decisions of october to start swapping out asics and start testing new rigs, and not wanting to raise the hashrate.
other pools reacting to it.
and then the private investors unlocking funds from 2017. (unrelated to tx in quote)

the movement of those coins in the quote is nothing new. and nothing to do with the year long unlock of funds from november 2017,,,
the coins movement pattern of the coins in the qoute happen many months of the year. but when some who only has a few $$ to their name sees hundred of millions move. the shock, sends them into a spiral of needing to talk about it.

its like right now apple moves huge sums. but if some person managed to record one of apples regular payments. and then asks about it on reddit.. suddenly a storm of speculation chatter begins about apple doing something big or apple must be moving country or other twaddle. when infact thats just apples staff grocery bill for the week

those funds were nothing special. its just one newbie got over excited seeing a large transaction for THEIR first time and thought it must be something news worthy. those funds were just an exchange re-organising their reserves like they do regularly.. thus its about as news worthy as a janitor coming into an office to sweep the office floor

for the same reason as you and many others.
even though there are 2000 coins..

because you gave a crap. because others gave a crap.. it brought attention to the crap.
if no one tweeted about or talked about the crap. then people would see it as crap where they would
not care about the crap and it would have not gotten any attention

i dont mean you give a crap as in you care about it.
i mean even now a month later your stil talking about something and asking questions about it.


even scams remain alive as long as people advertise it and it then shows pump and dump profitability.
thus self perpetually reviving itself the more its talked about.
best option is dont talk about it dont get curious about it, and let it fizzle out

no..

new gen asics were designed over summer. they started getting tested over autumn. they had to get rid of obsolete old hardware for 2 reasons

1. they didnt want to push the hashrate up to shotself in foot with large hashrate/difficulty too fast
2. its better to get rid of old hardware while it still had a few months value left in the hardware

so they sold the hardware to the social dramatists of the altcoins known as craig wright.

asic manufacturers and private investors knew 'mathematically' (on paper) they should try to declare a loss(tax deductibles are good) for this year to then start a fresh tax year in profit. so more reason to not push things. and instead for every 3 asics taken offline put just one next gen online for cough quality assurance cough purposes.

this meant it would avoid drama from the crowds shouting omg poolX has too much hashpower on bitcoin

this resulted in them lowering the hashrate but still able to make blocks in a reasonable time and make profit. so able to sell profitable and also using the coins they gain from selling the hardware both old tech and new. they had excess coins to sell
now they can mass produce rigs ready to ship (christmas week)

so hashrates drop and profitable to sell coins for one group. .. while other pools were not profitable so they took their rigs offline. thus bringing the curve down further.

also private investors that locked coins up from mid november 2017 got them unlocked mid november 2018 (that also amplified the shift down)
and thats what happened on the bitcoin network
.........

meanwhile totally and separately.
those altcoiners were gaining asics(old gen) dirt cheap but unsure what to do with it all.. so playing off the october bitcoin drama they decided to try making out they had sway and fame and prominence by starting some drama/distraction to hide whats really going on behind bitcoin and distract people with some nonsense altcoin drama as if the altcoin drama is of importance..
th altcoin drama was of no importance and no impact. it was just a distract for 2 people to just get some minutes of discussion fame and fake glory

what you'll find is that in the network. the whole consensus of solving byzantine generals problem has been bypassed. with near everyone just following one general now(core) and any dev team that wants to propose a new rule/feature that opposes the core roadmap ends up getting knocked off the network.. there is less need of a decentralised network(their view). as the "generals"(plural) has been sidelined and relegated off network. and now its one general and tens of thousands of loyal soldiers blindly following.

its gone from a byzantine generals solution for a decentralised generals network. to a singular general for a distributed soldier network

people end up not wanting to archive 10 years of data. just to wade through all that data just to ensure their $100 is confirmed.
holding the data if they are just interested in a few addresses becomes a waste of hard drive utility so they end up prunning it, thus they no longer become able to be a node that others can sync from

.. also you being a DNS seed is not being a full node. its just being a yellow pages directory to guide users to each other, essentually. which if you without bias dont set it to just list core nodes(as all DNS should do), would help if a revolution occured to bring core down a peg or two back down to an equal playing field with other nodes that want to get back to a united community of byzantine generals,
so it has purpose for some independent people to be DNS seed nodes to ensure the network doesnt become full 100% core only centralised.
.....
but back to the users being full nodes...
the situation will get worse when things are really pushed to pursuade users off the bitcoin network and into using another network like lightning.

because lightning network is not a bitcoin layer. it is its own network that allows multiple coins.
(bitcoin layer is just the sponsorship advertising buzzword many people use to try faming up that their project is part of the crypto industry, to garner investment)

users using the lightning network will find in a couple years that funds from litecoin, vertcoin or bitcoin are locked to be unspendable on their respective networks in a smart contract with a "factory/watchtower" entity. and this entity would need to monitor those multiple chains as a masternode.(super bloated mega node) to then when convinced the locks are locked. offer out a un-chained(unconfirmed) 'payment' to users that allows users to open channels. so that users can use phone apps to make payments instead of lugging around laptops/desktops when they visit starbucks

these factories become the gatekeepers (i would say banks but people hate when i say it, even if factually correct). this is so that users dont need to wait for their locked funds timeout to close a channel and broadcast a tx to the respective coin networks. they can just close channel and let the factory audit and then refresh them with a new un-chained(unconfirmed) 'payment' to reopen a new channel at any time.

this allows users to open/close channels more frequently if their co-partner in-channel is offline
yea i know your thinking the optimism of how great and user friendly it is. but. if you think about the whole network security of phone app users needing to trust a factory/masternode(bank) who has the real privatkey co-sign control of the real funds
and that the factory has to be a masternode monitoring the networks and also many users channels...
its not healthy. or secure, especially when the channels themselves are not byzantine general solved either

the only reasons the bitcoin network is told to people that blockchains dont work and impractical and slow. is due to the limitations of a blockchain imposed by the developers.(bitcoin is not AI self coding.. devs code it. devs put in the limitations, devs can remove them too)

anyway, take the initial block download argument. people dont really object to the blockchain data size. as a 256gb data is less than a fingernail(microsd) size, not a server size
its the fact that its coded that users cant even check a unverified balance to be able to do anything until the chain is synced.
if only they realised they could bloomfilter(request specific data of specific addresses) from peers first. just to get a unverified balance instantly. and then make the verifying/syncing more of a background secondary task that goes on less noticably so that people are not twiddling their thumbs waiting to see if they even have a balance/imported the correct wallet/keys

many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that to "be your own bank" on LN requires being a masternode of multiple chains. which is much more than just full noding one chain
(if you still think LN is bitcoin only feature.. research chainhash registry code in LN aswell as atomic swaps)


many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that its not a 'scaling bitcoin' its a take people away from bitcoin and use 12decimal payment values PEGGED to bitcoin via a masternode

many people are too optimistic about lightning(future multicurrency banking system) but dont realise that its not scaling bitcoin because its taking people off the bitcoin network where people wont want to be bitcoin full nodes as they are never going to be using bitcoin network daily

but anyways.. we are already seeing the dilution of the community bing diverted away from bitcoin. we are starting to see where the term "bitcoin maximalists" are being used as a derogatory term even to make it fel like if you support bitcoin as a payment network and want bitcoin to be secure and to scale then your 'dirt'

well based on the altcoins that buzzworded the term... those systems would have
full(deemed as lower class to master) nodes that validated and archive small network/region
and then
masternode that validates the combined networks

eg some alts have fullnodes validating/archiving ID data on one network, another that validates american users and their currency on another network. another that validates european users and their currency on another network

and a masternode that accesses monitors and validates all of them

i personally didnt invent the terminology and there are many cases where some buzzwords are completely wrong in regards to the definition
EG
in the UK. a master can be both the main top guy... and also the child of a family
the thing that holds keys that unlock and asset. should be a keyring not a wallet
so i say this. before you start pretending i advocate such things. and before you pretend i termed them

i was actually going to pick up on this point about james being friends with a nazi, as a poke at how james cant be satoshi

FTFY

but lets imagine i didnt fix it, you actually think:
the real satoshi, who used a japanese based name.....
the real satoshi, who created a currency that was open and borderless so that even the un supported developing countries had a way to transact and trade internationally
was a border loving racist......?

you just dug yourself the biggest hole in your argument, tripped over your own foot and fell in head first

your whole argument over the last 5 pages of this topics.. just fell flat

...
2 holes you just dug:
1. proved satoshi is not james. james is not satoshi
2. you have after many pages of trying to fame up james about his pre-2009 life and work experience... just destroyed his rep by outing james as a racist nazi

well played, game over, you lost. sorry no retries, you just lost 2 out of 3 games you were playing

nope
the blocks are just a collection of data that conform to the law. blocks and their PoW hash do not solve who/what is giving out the orders of what the law should be

PoW is just hashing a hash

do i really need to say it again to you same group of chums that seem to not understand bitcoin...
research consensus..

put it this way many other coins are sha256 PoW.. do you think their blocks are acceptable to bitcoin because of PoW.
PoW is just about giving  block a strong identifier that can easily show if data has been edited.
its consensus that decide the rules of whats acceptable format everyone should follow

if you think pre 2009 unsolvable electronic peer to per cash systems solution was PoW then i guess your next rebuttal will probably be a total satoshi denial and you would probably say how its gregmaxwell, luke and pieters boss that actually invented bitcoin.. (the old "Adam Back solved it with 'hashcash'" mantra)

so your advertising that a nazi got hit.
then your advertising that your girlfriend is using that news to get donations
then your advertising that your going to pitch some ICO's to oil barons..

ok i got that. you wanted to be famous so you can cash in.. yep knew that was gonna happen ages ago as soon as you started trying to mention lots of 1970's social life stuff and trying to make a rep for yourself to then say your account has commercial value
..
how about sell the nazi's truck.. then sell your user account for the commercial value you think it has.. that should keep your gf in luxury for a while

if the guy cant afford the bills and doesnt have insurance. then hospitals usually do have a provision to discount or even write off the medical expenses if his income is below a threshold

anyway
"In an interview with The Oregonian/OregonLive last year, Marr advocated for the extermination of Jewish people"

EDIT
he was taken to good samaritans hospital.. which .. oh look medicaid, medicare, charity
so im pretty sure he wont be out of pocket
hospitals mission statement
"As a not-for-profit health care organization, Samaritan Health Services is committed to contributing to the health and prosperity of our communities. Our Community Benefit program  encompasses our efforts to build healthier communities through volunteerism, direct and in-kind support of community health programs, and opportunities for those who could not otherwise afford medical care."

buy the dip... means the opposite of buy at the tip

    /\
   /  \
_/     \_/

in essence:
BUY LOW, SELL HIGH
not
BUY HIGH, SELL LOW

due to the wishy washy code and the fake buzzwords.. (discount, pfft yea right)


its 4mb block. but the witness scale factor makes legacy transactions appear as 4x the size when counted in code, thus to be treated as only being able to fit into a 1mb limit

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units#Weight_for_legacy_transactions

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/bccb4d29a8080bf1ecda1fc235415a11d903a680/src/consensus/tx_verify.cpp#L167

it also does stuff like fake how many actual signops legacy transactions actually perform
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/bccb4d29a8080bf1ecda1fc235415a11d903a680/src/consensus/tx_verify.cpp#L140

so as others have said. while there is a 4mb limit. that 4mb is not fully utilisable due to the witness scale factor fudging with the count

probably better if your gonna use lukes charts to atleast use the more useful one
https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/branches.html ~65% are capable of being full nodes, but it doesnt really show how many actually are (not prunned)

and as for home users with bad internet or using it as an excuse i have seen many times when they post their logs they ramped up their connection count

you really think that the hashrate is going to fall to 12exahash to support the market:mining dynamics whereby
12exahash of only 450,000 s15's
or
14exahash of only 1m s9's

you do realise typically in 2018 bitcoin had running 3.5millioon s9's
now its at about 2mill S9's

do you really think that the hashrate gonna go down much more even when new asics will be coming online??

i think education itself needs a big overhaul.
EG
take universities. you pay multiple thousands to sit in a theatre designed room to listen to a guy ramble on.
if only universities were more like youtube(but more organised) where lecturers record their lessons. and users can select which lecturer out of multiple lecturers to learn from. and ofcourse the more popular lecturers that actually teach something worthy of learning get the most upvotes/views=best pay.

yep someone can if they want. make a site that links the best videos that teach people about bitcoin in the best ways. and even categorise it to be in a ELI-5(for dummies) lesson, all the way up to technical.

monetise it, make it free or even offer a education 'credit'(token) for watching it.. whatever.
atleast variety of teach styles/levels would be better than the "one way" method of learning thats been the same old archaic education system for centuries

there has always been a market:mining dynamic that plays out during low speculation. yes no one can predict the volatility of prices up's (hype, spikes and ATH).. but the underlying value of the bottom LOW support has shown the dynamics at play.

with the last difficulty adjustment of 2018 just passing we are now in the realm of pools realising that next weeks deliveries of next gen asics will be pivoting the hashrate into a rise. and so the market:mining dynamics will play out with a rise too.

no one can predict how high. or how much. but if you watch the hashrate and it it continues with a sustained rise then the market:mining dynamics will play out positively

the way i see it. if new to crypto they pull you in with "lessons that pay" but require you to signup to their 'pro' exchange to claim the prize

flip:

flop:

flop:

flop:

flop:

yes doomad, i noticed you deleted your posts to hide your dictatorship supporting rants.. and your flip flops. but you missed many

real funny thing. in your posts all you ever done was tell me what i shouldnt be doing. that i shouldnt discuss a certain topic, that i should not say x or y. and how if i wrote code how ud be the first to rekt me. and if you knew of a way early on to discourage me from being involved in bitcoin. you would use it..

and all i done was ask you to independently research a few things, without you being spoonfed info from certain people

good evening and goodnight. may you enjoy your social drama. just remember. if you dont like things i discuss there is always an ignore button. and as a reminder you cant try playing the victim of a bite when you were the one poking the bear

home users that naively think connecting their (imagine worse case)1mb connection to 100 nodes is helping. it is not.
if you have low bandwidth its better to only connect to 10 nodes. thus the 10 nodes get the data relayed sooner.

no one wants to be connected at a speed of 0.01. when they could be connected to a node at 0.1
it puts less strain on the user AND less strain on the network this way.

imagine it this way. your house. you want to open it up as a homeless shelter. it can only accommodate 10 beds happily.
do you think cramming in 100 people is helping those people. or is it better to help just 10 people and let others find another house where if everyone offered a room for 10 people everyone becomes happy.

so in short if your bandwidth is tight. just connect to less nodes, better for you, better for those connected to you.
if 10 nodes is a problem. try 5, if that a problem try 2.. just dont go up to high numbers and then cry that your internet is super slow

they can write anything. but thats different from should they be allowed to control the whole network using consensus bypasses
imagine it if other teams done it. im sure youll be up in arms. infact i already seen it you have demonstrated that you would REKT anyone that opposed core. so your a hypocrit when you think its ok for core to dominate and control but then hate it when anyone else even discusses a possibility of non core control...

again try to learn consensus
learn byzantine generals

again its about anyone can write what they like. but it doesnt mean they should get what they like.

EG you can write your name and number on a napkin all you like. but that doesnt mean you get the right to mandate a female to become your wife

....
back to the discussion topic of what a coin 2.0 should change

writing features should be something any team should be able to write and have their own proposal gateway without having you go through cores moderated/censored method. but where the feature is only activated using satoshis solution to the byzantine generals problem which is what made bitcoin unique to all previous distributed database models. not mandated activation to bypass consensus.. as that is just a standard database that just has loyalist copies distributed all following one dictator

ive been around since 2012 and i got a nice hold of coins. i buy stuff all the time.
the way i see it is that say one coin in 2012 worth 6 loaves of bread. today can buy me 3500 loaves of bread so im happy to spend bitcoin buying bread with my bitcoin.

from a merchants perspective when they sell a loaf of bread for say $1. they in seconds display a btc price and in minutes that amount arrives. they can automate the sell of the btc to fiat in that time too.
if they know the cost of the dough, cooking and labour came to 30cents. tax 20cents. they can convert half of the sell back to fiat to cover costs. and keep half as bitcoin for the shop owners own retirement fund
knowing at some point that $0.50 of btc will probably be able to at a later date be able to create more than just another loaf, but the $0.50 of fiat will only make them one loaf.

its all about finding the needs of the merchant. displaying the benefits to the merchant and also showing how easy it is to accept bitcoin.
you will be surprised how many merchants take up and start accepting btc when they see how easy it can be, by actually doing a demo/dry run purchase with them when you mention bitcoin to them

oh jeez, you poke, so ill bite..

the reason you hate me repeating myself is because you hate me raising an issue you wish lay hidden under a rug. and you hate me making people aware of the issue. which makes your job harder to hide it.
i have told you many many times that the MANDATED bull crap is the opposite of consensus. but then you act ignorant that i said it and act even more ignorant that i prefer consensus. all so you can pretend im the one advocating for splits and mandated.. but thats your flaw

restrictive environment??
seriously you need to do some research
devs can and should be able to write what they like. this includes taking onboard things the community want.. your mindset is the devs should ignore the community and the community should not have a say.(your no democracy no vote proposal)

my mindset is more teams where there is no REKT campaigns. your mindset is to have REKT campaigns and one team

my mindset is to use consensus to decide.. your mindset is that there should not be a vote and that a certain team should just demand something activates on a date and push opposition off the network contentiously at a lower threshold

now how about go take that coffee, sit back, relax de-stress and really review your own flip flops and just pick what one you really prefer
libertarian capitalist socialist(open to all) decentralised network of consensus to solve the byzantine generals problem
or
capitalist centralised network with just loyalist distribution that just follow by compatibility of the single general
so use this posts discussing to be productive and choose to flip or flop. and stick with one

then if you really want to discuss things about bitcoin. try to stick to content of the discussion and not the author of discussion. if your agenda the moment you wish to reply is to just attack the author of a discussion. try hitting the ignore button instead. and no point acting the bitten victim of a personal comment as reason to reply. as it was you that done the initial personal poke