mr meander AKA doomad pokes again
1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee
3. i am not advocating anything. i am saying bitcoin was designed 2009 to solve the issue of avoiding the need of a "dev state"(general(singular)) and instead where the bitcoin system works via community consensus of generals(plural). because thats the unique thing satoshi solved.
4. i know you want "dev state" to decide changes and have the community as just loyal soldiers just archiving data under the rules defined by dev state. you have been very clear on that. even to such an extent that before even writing public available code you have made it your mission to REKT anyone that opposes "dev state"

all you have done over the last few months is admit your a capitalist centralist where "dev state" are the kings and above the law and they deserve to be free. and everyone else should just be loyalists with no say. because you dont want community votes.. you just keep flip flopping to try hiding your desire. and you pretend you want freedom as long as it only applies to freely letting "dev state" to rule

come on.. think realistically.. not optimistically
where has there ever been a case where 600,000 people were able to get their transaction confirmed all in one day

show me a day that the transaction count surpassed 600k, to show that bitcoin has grown to surpass the capacity to allow 600,000 people to use bitcoin a day peer-to-peer

not group-to-peer
not custodian-to-peers
but per-to-peer

?
in every belief is a lie?

PRICE is not the underlying value
first 3 quarters of 2018 $5800 was a good measure.. then in october hashrate curved down. and then price curved down in november.


in 2015
the hashrate was between 250peta-400petahash during the stagnant period which doing math of asics at the time... it was break even/profitable there was a bit in august 2015 which touched on the break-even testing the bottomline.. then by autumn the hashrate and the market price moved up

bull run=
2016 $300^
2017 $900^
2018 $3200^

daily/weekly volatility=
cubs(small bears) v
calves(small bulls)^

personally i use the mining cost/market dynamic numbers to help find the bottomline support which has been a good guide for years of knowing the bottom.

the final difficulty adjustment of 2018 just happened. and so now we are in the realm of mining pools knowing the next difficulty jump WILL be affected by the delivery of next gen asics getting delivered in a week to thousands of people.
pushing up hashrate. pushing up costs. and therefore making many prefer to buy coin as a cheaper option, sparking a price rise

be careful here. because you will be handling fiat outside of your home..
inside of your home "hobby" (non public use) your fine with family and friends. doing small justifiable amounts privately in your own home.

but as soon as you put it out in public. KYC/AML.. and registering as a money business and security of the ATM become costly
EG MSB licences and insurances are not cheap
EG you need a safe/lockbox in the ATM thats going to keep the bank notes safe if someone put a hammer to it
EG you need to bolt it to the small business premises floor and make it not easy to pick up and leave your friends premises

this is why people ended up just working as an "agent" of a MSB and leasing a BTM. rather than having to become an MSB yourself

if for your own playing around you wont need it to have a secure 'safe' for the bank notes. i presume you would only store bank notes in it while you play. thus you can manually manage that risk of the ATM full of bank notes being taken out your house

you would need a bank note feeder/note counter(to make sure it doesnt spit out too many bank notes) and makes sure it doesnt accept crayon drawn(forged) bank notes

big tip. dont let the computer/controller board. be an actual wallet containing keys.
instead let it just be a API sender/receiver to a remote system that does the actual coin handling
this will mean you can get away with using a raspberry pi because you wont be doing full blockchain checks in the ATM. you will just be API calling in and out data

as for making one. google has the answers.. and here is one
https://openbitcoinatm.wordpress.com/tutorial/

not specifically that one, but there a are a few of that exact format so


the whole hype of scaling using LN is "be like VISA"
visa dont have multisig.. they just do straight peer-visa-peer. so using the peer-to peer and not the group-to peer
.. you know.. making transactions lean and simple peer to peer.
... deactivating BLOATING contracts
... deactivating transactions  that use more bytes (even 'singlekey' segwit uses more hard drive bytes than legacy does by the way)
and going back to basics of lean peer-to-peer network



witness scalefactor does not stop spammers spamming should they wish. witness scale factor does not stop block sizes increasing. but the whole segwit+witnes scale factor does limit tx count growth and does mess with the bloat vs hard drive utility per tx count

my answer of

the whole hyp of scaling is "be like VISA"
visa dont have multisig.. they just do straight peer via peer. so using the peer-to peer and not the group-to peer
.. you know.. making transactions lean and simple peer to peer.
... deactivating BLOATING contracts
... deactivating transactions  that use more bytes (even 'singlekey' segwit uses more hard drive bytes than legacy does by the way)
and going back to basics of lean peer-to-peer network


would still apply
as going back to simple peer-to-peer.. AND being leaner them 230 transactions would fit in LESS than 2.3mb... so that 2.3mb would fit more than 230tx

i know you dont like me discussing things. but this is a discussion board. the ignore button is free

naming them is pointless. but knowing values that move through exchanges is the important part.

after all if a big name was to be named they would never admit the exact minute they would buy/sell as that would hurt their own profitability.
but just think about how much needs to be invested to be a whale
to have 1% of the circulation as a elit group and in that group be someone that has atleast 1% of that
you need atleast 2100btc

so think about how much you have invested and you will be roughly in that ball park

$100 algae
$1000 tadpole
$10,000 goldfish
$100,000 salmon
$1m shark
$10m whale

as soon as i read its a cell phone app i instantly knew its not blockchain/decentralised.

thats the wishy washy code, where devs pretend they have given the community 4mb space. but the reality is expectant to be around 1.2mb-2.1mb average while witness scale factor is limiting utility below 4mb

we still have not surpassed satoshi's 7tx/s calculation (600k tx a day) and he calculated that 8 years ago

what you and your chums need to understand is. having hope, faith and loyalty of a king and promoting a utopian dream and hoping everyone will be loyalist to a king is not what bitcoin was dsigned for.

schnorr has negatives. and trying to do personal attacks to hide the negatives is not helping anyone.
yes schnorr has negatives.

1. it hides how many parties are involved in a multiparty smart contract
2. when signing. even those involved wont know who signed it.
3. imagine some users are prompted with a smart contract under the belief thats its a 2-of-2 co-sign address.. but the reality is its actually a 2-of-3 smart contract and the other person has 2 keys and you only have 1.. guess what, chances are the other person will sign off funds to themselves when the 'pot' gets big enough that greed takes over morals

FTFY

myth= look at the purple


LN allows other coins that same utility right now.

right now nothing is stopping people in
litecoin from locking up LTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
bitcoin from locking up BTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
vertcoin from locking up VTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'

as for the atomic swap. yes that part is along way away as thats the part where factory/watchtower(masternodes) really will be needed.
funny part though. to have masternodes monitoring multipl chains. is like saying users cant handle one chain so a no-chain network is needed.. but inevitably full LN nodes will be multiple chain handling...
see the hypocrisy
EG man cant handle 1 wife, so lets develop a network with no wife so he can play with prostitutes(channels)... years later.. man need to monitor 4 wives to then play with prostitutes
or just risk a prostitiute(cellphone lite wallet) app and trust the prostitutes pimp whos got 4 wives to watch over the payments

bitcoin 2009-2013 was designed so that there was no "general"(singular)
cypherpunks for decades were having issues of making digital money in a way that did not require a general(singular) and instead where generals(plural) had an equal playing field where consensus would form majority agreement

meaning different brands of nodes that can all HAPPILY(without rekt, without 'dont like it F**k off').. offr proposals which would only activate when TRUE majority consensus was reached(without rekt, without 'dont like it f**k off') and satoshi invented bitcoin because it solved all that..

but now we are in a one general barking out the new orders to their loyal soldiers. and if soldiers were not loyal. they were shot onsite

which is the opposite of the whole reason of bitcoin unique invention, which was to finally have a currency which solved the byzantine generals issue to allow more than one brand to actually be on a level playing field.

yet you and your chums do not like the idea of having generals(plural) that use consensus. you lot prefer a general(singular) with mandated upgrades and consensus bypassing upgrades that are done without soldier allegiance needed

as exampled
where you think everyone should have to do it via "dev state" repo where its not expected people to even get to the point of having their proposal put into code to even allow anyone to download it, to even have a chance of a community consensus.

what you notice is that the bloated "batch" tx's are using segwit smart contracts which batched up 200 inputs and 1 output
with a 65kb bloat per tx

if an exchange used 200 legacy addresses
in*180 + out*34 + 10
200*180 +1*34 +10=36044

so using segwit. actual hard drive bytes are 65kb.. vs legacy would have been 36kb per tx..
meaning less actual hard drive bytes would have been used by that block 230 txs.

now imagine it was legacy, and no witness scale factor and the legacy cap was 2.3mb(to keep the block the same hard drive bytes used limit as the block exampled).. more than 230 tx's would have fit in

now imagine 4mb legacy cap without the segwit witness scale factor to make the 4mb weight fully utilisable. even more transactions would have fit into a block..

it aint rocket science

you mean
one copy of the chain upto block 478558

then a btc chain of 478559->ongoing
and a bch chain of 478559-556767
then a bch chain of 556768->ongoing
then a bchsv chain of 556768->ongoing

like this:
2009----------------------------------o-----2018 btc
                                                   |
2009----------------------------------o---e-2018 bch
                                                         |                            
2009--------------------------------------e-2018 bchsv

instead of this:
2009----------------------------------------2018 btc
2009----------------------------------------2018 bch
2009----------------------------------------2018 bchsv

as for that block


2.2mb ... but only 230 transactions included..
that there is known as a bloated block as its wasting alot of tx count on heavy transactions..

a very worse case scenario is where a block can be bloated with just 5tx... yep
if you cared about bitcoin utility on the bitcoin network. i/you should not be proud of a block using 2.2mb for just 230 or 5tx.. thats the opposite of scaling bitcoin for better utility.

what you should be seeking is a case where the old notion of bitcoin allowing upto 7tx/s (4200tx a block) having on average more than 4200tx.. that then would be a time to celebrate a step forward in bitcoin utility..
or more long term more than 600k tx a day threshold being passed.

no one should be proud of a 2.2mb block of only 230tx

firstly i never said 2.1mb was a limit. i said 2.1 was a more realistic utility
EG i also said 1.2mb but that does not mean minimum limit. is just the expectant range of average.. obviously blocks can be less and more. but do not expect blocks being 4mb filled
expect it more around the 1.2mb-2.1mb area
if howevr they removed a wishy washy bit of code called witness scale factor. then more transactions can be utilitised meaning more transactions, better utility and yes actually getting full use of the 4mb weight.

....

the bit about millions of home users running full nodes on outdated pc's and slower internet causing bottlenecks vs just 10k-100k running full nodes using business lines and regularly updated hardware

imagine it took you 2-14 seconds to ask-receive-validate-relay a block
imagine your a node with 8 connections (ok for home use internet speeds)
node connects to 8 users. and those 8  connect to 8 and so on

8*8*8*8
in 8 second min 56 second max. 4096 nodes have the data

8*8*8*8*8
in 10 second min 70 second max. 32768 nodes have the data

8*8*8*8*8*8
in 12 second min 84 second max. 262144 nodes have the data

8*8*8*8*8*8*8
in 14 second min 94 second max. 2097152 nodes have the data

as you can see it can take upto 1minute and 34 seconds before 2millions people have the data
where as:
imagine where its more for those with 'unlimited fibre' plans and people that upgrade their computer often(4 year as oppose to 10 years)
imagine it took you 2-4 seconds to ask-receive-validate-relay a block

64*64
in 4 second min 8 second max. 4096 nodes have the data

64*64*64
in 6 second min 12 second max. 262144 nodes have the data

as you can see.. home users would take 12-84 seconds to get data to over 200k nodes
those with fibre and more modern updated pcs would take 6-12 seconds to get data to over 200k nodes

...
and to address the personal attack from doomad.
less important, as his noise is usually just insults..
 he is a guy that loves the idea of having funds locked up and is promoting other networks. he loves telling people if they are not happy with the plan then just go away....(facepalm)
 
so he truly hates it when people have an opinion that bitcoin utility, scaling and growth should remain on bitcoin. instead his mindset swaying users to give up using bitcoin and transact in other networks. as those other networks are not blockchained, not limited to bitcoin only coin utility.

in short not sorting out bitcoins network issues and swaying people off network. wont really help people to want to use bitcoin or return to the network.. instead they will just prefer to swap to altcoins within LN and then use other coins network...

much like 19th century banking that vaults up gold makes people play with paper promissory notes and when they withdraw they think gold is too heavy so they withdraw silver coins instead... leaving gold(bitcoin) for those that managed to make going back to bitcoin a hassle via bloated blockchain, bottlenecks, high fee's and low txcount

but dont mind doomad. he does not realise this is a discussion forum. so hates it when people discuss things that are not positive for his group of friends.
kissing ass and being 100% loyal and hide issues under the rug is what he prefers.. it really causes him to get angry when people are more open and honest to be more critical thinking and looking for real solutions and just speaking out when things are not as they seem/promoted

the weight is 4mb. correct. but the code is actually 4mb / WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR(4) to keep the now outdated 1mb existing and limiting real utility. but a bit more hidden so they can pretend and flip flop social drama the 1mb's existance or non existance depending on what agenda/conversation they have.

but yes even with 4mb weight. due the to reliance of the still existing 1mb limitation. tx capacity and bytes used is expected to be around 1.2mb-2.1mb realistic utility. even in a situation of everyone using segwit(not gonna happen).. so 4mb is not really a true 4mb limit.
(to much wishy washy code)