one thing is obvious even by the topic.

bitcoin "gave".
even he topic creator subconsciously/subtly admits bitcoins PAST ethos gave people an idea.
but the present. is not the same as the past.

your using the consensus as designed 2009-2013 to explain xt, classic, unlimited... and how core didnt get the vote early on

but you again seem to want to pretend the non consensus mandated august 1st 2017 bypass (dev state buzzword bilateral split) ever occured.
kind of funny because "dev state" were and still are proud that it occured

the fact that you admit in another post that core didnt get segwit in using the 2009-2013 consensus (the november 2016-spring 2017) shows it wasnt high majority. it only had 35% vote.

those that did run other nodes that are not compatible. were rlegated off network, diluting out the 65% objections. or relegated them as non voter 'compatible' (downstream/filtered/not full node/stripped)
purely to fake a 95% loyalty

thats why the mandated contentious events happened at the defined and mandated date of august 2017. because core didnt like their 35% vote, but didnt want to renegotiate/compromise back to a 2015 empty promise that the community would have accepted.

yep if core actually went with the 2015 consensus agreement they would have actually got segwit activated by christmas 2016 without contention(well, with the least contention)
.....
as for the market. dcg is the market. look at all the exchanges they OWN... remember the NYA agreement.. yes that... their involvement activated segwit with a fake promise that looks like the 2015 agreement. but backpeddled out of the 2x part, once 1x was activated. along with the UASF threats made by samson mow(dcg.co paid via BTCC) and luke JR(dcg.co paid via Blockstream). along with the fake offering of objectors with the bch(dcg.co paid via blockchain.info)

users do not code a node
bitcoin is not an AI machine that self codes.
its developers that code changes. so any changes made are done by developers.

your argument is like saying house buyers control house creation.. um.. no housing developers do. you know.. the people that lay bricks and cement.
homeowners dont lay the bricks and cement. and these days home owners have less choice of house designs unless they are rich to employ their own developers. the average person only get to choose whatever designs being offered by developers.

these days the developers have now more powers to push their designs through to activation without community consent

but concentrating on the change from 2009-13 libertarian/open border currency. compared to todays more capitalist elite/authoritarian currency.

you can convey the situation like this

dcg.co = NYA agreement = king
core developers = segwit1x = knights
bloq developers = segwit2x = knights
bitcoinabc= bch= pawns

dcg.co = president
core developers = senate law makers
bloq developers = senate law makers
bitcoinabc= kanye wests fake political nomination

dcg.co = town hall housing planning department
core developers = housing developers
bloq developers = housing developers
bitcoinabc= mobile home designers

when you look at dcg.co/portfolio
it all becomes clear
blockstream=core devs
bloq= jgarzic/gavin
blockchain.info=ver

august 2017 was a planned event. even bch was just a distraction fake choice, to give the illusion of free choice
ver is in the pocket of dcg just as much as gavin is. and remember the drama of gavin in 2013-4 vs core... same story played out as played out in 2017

the btc:bch drama is just kardashian family social distraction drama.

people really need to take a step back from being sheep following the promotional adverts and actually need to look at the bigger picture of the whole show being played out to dilute the community down and push people out of the bitcoin network at any means, but under the pretence of fake/empty promises of offering something better.

when some scream and cry the price has dropped. others hear the words "discount"

just get ready folks. when the hashrate starts climbing once ASICS start getting delivered over christmas.
the "whats the cheapest way to obtain bitcoin" dynamic will play out and we will start to see price supports grow.

comparing bitcoin now to a specific date of KNOWN temporary speculation (the bubble period)
is like comparing someone buying a house in the 1990's but only using the a valuation of peak value of exact day/month of lets say 10 years ago.

however comparing today vs 2 years ago today, 3 years ago today, 4 years ago today and so on. bitcoin is still higher and better.

segwit is not a separate coin on the same network. its a tx format specialised to be used as the gateway format to be compatible with other networks. namely the LN network.

segwit tx format on the bitcoin network IS moving bitcoin value. but yes some nodes not segwit compatible wont relay, create or be able to independently fully verifying the funds of a segwit tx format. at best/worse. once other nodes have confirmed the block containing the segwit tx formatted btc funds. the non segwit user would just have to "trust" the peers they connected to honourable validated the block on their behalf. effectively relegating the non segwit nodes to no longer be full nodes, but leacher/lite nodes just archiving stripped data and trusting peers done a good job.

its the LN network which is not bitcoin.
LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin. it requires locking up for instance bitcoin into a 'vault'(segwit multisig) that is co-signed by another entity. which puts pressure on the bitcoin networks UTXOset if everyone started doing.. it to then let the user use a different network(LN).

segwit has made it so bitcoin can be forked and/or upgraded far more easily without having to achieve a 95% consensus before features activate, stalling out incompatible nodes or causing those nodes that did not upgrade into no longer being full nodes.
whereby using the old 95% consensus:
the incompatible stalled 5% nodes could decide to just go offline, upgrade to be part of the network again or make an altcoin at the stall date.
whereby using the more contentious method:
the incompatibe stalled out higher % nodes could decide to just go offline, upgrade to be part of the network again or make an altcoin at the stall date.
the unupgraded "compatible" can continue under a downstream/filtered 'trust of peer' situation, upgrade or join an altcoin should one be made at the stall date.

now if segwit activated new features at a lower threshold with more than 5% nodes not compatible. then it becomes more contentious. as was seen in august 2017

as for the fee's.
compared to the 2015 promise of segwit bring so much benefit. segwit has not made transactions cheaper. it had ripped out fee priorities. caused fee wars and has, using a feature known as witness scale factor, made it so normal bitcoin tx formats are 4x more expensive. even while the segwit fee's are still higher than the 2015 average fee cost to transact thus making traditional bitcoin tx formats 4x more again than that.

..
the last 3 years has not been done to scale bitcoin because as of yet even as far back as 2009-10 when satoshi himself mentioned that bitcoin could handle 7tx/s (600k tx a day) the bitcoin network still has not surpassed 600k tx a day, even after all the promises promised. and also even when mempools have surpassed 1mb per 10min and people still having to wait more than one block just to get a confirm.

segwit is simply a tx format to be a gateway format to allow users to use another network and take utility away from using bitcoin, as that was its primary purpose.
hard drive byte per byte segwit is not proposed as a scaling solution.
segwit sat per byte is not proposed as the fee reduction solution compared to the 2015 levels and the total opposite of solving fee promises for non segwit tx formats

the lightning network is about as much a "bitcoin feature" as coinbase.com is.
its a separate system for multiple coin utility involving vaulting up funds with another entity to then use a payment system of 12 decimal values, in an unaudited, non blockchain, non byzantine generals solving dataset system.

its not a bitcoin scaling solution, its a take user utility of the bitcoin network away from the bitcoin network and let users use another network.
much like how 19th century gold got vaulted up and people ended up playing with promissory notes that were redeemable by the co-signer that created the promissory note(know known as banks)

LN will end up requiring factories to both be watchtowers of channels and masternodes monitoring SEVERAL chains
which does not actually solve the issues of fullnodes.
also while average joe people are playing with 12 decimal payments on cellphone lite wallets, hoping to get rich routing thier own funds as a hotpotato game. in exchange for millibit income. will end up having to pay factories to be the entry/exit node.
and if you think average joe will be the full node factories. well goodluck with that hope.

the "dev state" know of LN issues and are happy to admit it has problems
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
problems which are mentioned in the first few sconds as problems they cant/wont find solutions to

we need to concentrate on bitcoins network utility, not creating side-gates to push people off network.
pushing people off network is the opposite of what bitcoiners should be doing. but as a few "dev state" supporters are showing, thats the agenda. dont like what "dev state" do F**k off, seems to be the mantra

by you thinking everything has to be done via "dev state" organising the development is again you and your chums not even understanding consensus in regards to the byzantine generals theorum
it seems you and your chums are stuck in the mindset of single controlbase of a single general HQ. and happy with it

but i do laugh that doomad thinks permissionless payments is his excuse to avoid understanding consensus of protocol (2 different things)
and then flip flops to also want LN (permissioned payment)

again for the many many many topics he does not understand
devs can write reams of code. they can write it how they like, they can even write it on the leg of a thai bride they contract with,, but the ACTIVATION should not be done in the tyranical way of 2017.

doomad would be in uproar if a non "dev state" team done what occured in 2017

but as always lets just let doomad insult and flipflop.
doomad doesnt want to understand a decentralised network that solves byzantine generals issue. he is happy in a world of only understanding single general and sheep loyal soldiers

thought if he spent the last few months actually doing research beyond his chums he would have learned a few truth about the real situation and not the diatribe spoon fed to him by his chums wanting their roadmap even at a cost of throwing people off the network to force their plan into action.

currently every block is limited to 1,250,000,000 sharable units of the reward.. you do know that they are going to be soon wanting to make the reward have 1,250,000,000,000 sharable units of reward. which will extend mining for reward well passed the year 2140
but yea as per usual they will hide it by saying that 1250,000,000,000 is the same as 1,250,000,000 by saying the extra sharable units are named at the bottom end not the top end... trying to totally sleeping pill the sheep to not realise more units of measure are still more units of measure (less scarcity)

does it have a police system. yep
moderation and only certain "police" with authority to ack/Nack new laws. and then when pushing it through the "state" they are instead of using the old 2013 consensus mechanism. they are using the 2017 mechanism to administrate their laws into passing.

all i read is doomad having no clue and just insulting..

typical
may he spend more time researching and less time insulting, he may see what real consensus is, and not the twisted mistaken version taught to him by his buddies.


fixed that for you

its getting real easy to spot whos bubbies with who because theres the obvious repeat same misguided concepts taught to them by certain people.
one day they will learn about consensus.

one major reason i know doomad has no clue about consensus is because he and his chums do not believe in the need of byzantine generals(decentralisation of power). they believe there only needs one general(centralisation), and a bunch of loyal soldiers(distribution). they just have not really grasped the concept of decentralisation.... or maybe its not of commercial interest to them to want bitcoin decentralised anymore, and instead just distributed soldiers of loyalty following one general

one day they will learn about consensus.
but until then all i see is people trying devilishly hard to not let people talk about the "dev state" situation thats has arisen since 2013+

seems a particular buddy group appear to want to defend "dev state" and not protect bitcoin network security of a community
well give it a while and when "dev state" move on, retire, get hired on other projects. i wonder what doomad and his chums would do next..
as i think these fanboys really dont understand that devs are not immortal and favouring "dev state" more then the bitcoin network is their flaw

goodnight.

oh here we go.. mr "dev state" defender numero one with his insults.
yawn


^ the main authoritarian admirer at his best flip flop attempts
look at him tell people that if they dont like things they should leave at any time if they dont approve
typical mindset

in consensus its simple
if people dont approve they should not leave
they should just not approve of something they do not approve of.

leaving is not a vote. leaving is avoiding a vote thus letting the corrupt automatically get 100% simple because the only ones left to vote are the sheep adoration brigade

typical for core fans, want to remove people that dont approve which is what occured in august 2017 (the blockchain doesnt lie)
and thats how the core now hav majority as oppose to only 35% in spring 2017

..
but you lot continue with your mindset of "dev state" adoration. you simply just have to admit that your authoritarian centralists an the debate ends

you fear having diverse teams of different brands cooperating on a single network
you fear having diverse teams of different brands offering proposals that oppose cores roadmap
you fear having diverse teams of different brands that could oppose cores wishes

all you desire is core control where everyone else just follows cores roadmap. thus you do not want a decentralised diverse network of different brands you want a core branded network of sheep  that are just distributing core code to retain cores control and leadership

https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/
it says 9737 differnt types of nodes at time of posting
if you then search for 1037 (tag that suggests running full node services)
it says 6295 at time of posting

thats 65% of nodes are full nodes


and going back to the near 10k diverse nodes.. if you search out the current block height
it says 5805 at time of posting
thats under 60% that are uptodate of all nodes.

which means that the 65% of full nodes are not all uptodate

oh. also out of the near 10k nodes 30% of them are all hoarded on amazon, hetzner and digital ocean servers. meaning not decentralised.

so the representation of decentralised, diverse, uptodate and fully validating nodes is more closer to 3k than it is to 10k

cores repository
(facepalm)
so you have already resigned your mindset that "dev state" are king... ok got that

as for anyone can make a pull request.
have you not looked at the moderation
remember you yourself believe and have been of approval that not everyone should be allowed to
here ill remind you.. as it seems you and your buddies have short memories when it comes to flip flopping to prtend its opn and then flop to say its best left as moderated and closed.


i know you will argue that bitcoin is "open" but any boss can say their door is always open and then say make an appointment and knock before entering or simply go away not now.
even a open door can ask you to wipe your feet before entering
.. oops i mean 'Nack'

again if you understood consensus as it was in 2009 2013. just having code proposals and nodes on the network does not mean jack until majority activation. ill say it again ACTIVATION
so why so afraid of a non "dev state".. why so adamant of wanting a "dev state"?

but the issue is not so much about "dev state" its more so that "dev state" can add code without consensus by either mandating people opposing off the network or by (their buzzword) inflight upgrades, which is in technical terms a trojan backdoor.
its like having autoupdate with no way of setting it to manual or dont upgrade. which is different to how bitcoin was in 2009-2013.

prime example needed? bech32 addresses came about in 2018. was there a consensus vote on it?
what other address formats and op codes will get activated without a consensus...
ever thought bugs can be introduced...
even care about bugs being introduced?

put it another way. imagine if a dev that was not "dev state" was to add stuff without consensus.. i can guarantee you would be up in arms screaming that something was done without dev state.

prime example needed? research REKT

again dont go trying to use a bitcoin ethos of 2009-2013 and pretend things are the same now
and dont be like your flip flop chums who flip flop to say its open and then flop flip to say "dev state" should not be told what to do and not do because they are king.

atleast take some time and choose which foot ur gonna stand on before you trip yourself up like your flip flop chums do.
because right now you are standing on the foot of wanting everything to go through the "dev state" repository.

well

many pages on. and again just seeing you trying to fame up the person known as james...
yet no proof of satoshi ties

again because your trying too hard to fame up the james person by saying how he may have made a game worth billions.. and trying to fame yourself up by mention movies a guy named craig cobb was in. and trying to make ur timestamp username "commercially valued

your just wasting your time..
you not actually proving bitcoin creators identity.

again social drama of the 70's or secret skype chats in 2012 are meaningless. and just trying to say james or cobb are well known for this and that have nothing to do with bitcoins creator.

your still not actually proving bitcoins creator claim your topic opens with. your just trying to create fame from mentioning many random un associated things that happened from 1970's onwards. purely from what i can see to try getting "commercial value". even hoping the BBC will pick up on your 'story'

yet i see no proof, but see alot of text about social drama.
in short. your just as bad as faketoshi

ok so now your going with that james didnt conceptualise satoshi dice because your talks about satoshi dice and units of account were done so AFTER both units of account and the game were operational.(late 2012)

atleast that defeats your claims that james conceptualised had an idea of a dice game..

atleast you can say you climbed your way out of that hole early before you dug yourself too deep trying to fake fame james up as the guy that concepted the units of account and the game.

so when did james teach you all about bitcoin and the units of account
2008,9,10?

after all your trying to claim james conceptualised the game so he must have done so early on while you were still naive about bitcoin.


^ seems you are trying to make it plausible that james might have created it due to him having an idea which he discussed with you..

going back to the units of account

now before you even bother to try to quickly google search a date and make up a story.. the units of account came to fruition after february 2011
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3311.msg47442#msg47442

and was done so by the community. not james and not satoshi...
and as i said the game came after and was about gambliing units of account. it was not named after the creator

have a nice day

satoshidice has nothing to do with bitcoins creator

so lets clear some crap up for the social drama queen
1. the smallest unit of account for bitcoin 0.00000001 is called a satoshi. this was not given to the unit of measure by the creator of bitcoin. it was given by the community in honour months AFTER the disappearance of bitcoins creator
2. satoshi dice game is not named after the creator. the satoshi dice game is about gambling using units of measure
3. satoshi dice game was not created by satoshi or by james.

seriously timestamp. your social crap of waffle of personal messages in skype are proving nothing. infact the more you mention the more you making yourself look foolish

give up while your behind

trying to kiss james ass by faming him up by suggesting he not only is satoshi but also created(under the satoshi name) the game satoshi dice. is laughable.. and you fell into a hole you just dug for yourself

also the james account trying to fame up the timestamp account continues to make me think timestamp and james are one and the same. especially went you went full on 'this account has commercial value'

your not gonna get famous, your not gonna get rich from your attempts. sorry but talking to yourself wont lead to riches. it will just lead to you talking to yourself and looking more and more like a nutcase.

so best to just give up while your behind.
i would poke more holes in your social drama attempts. but i think spending just a few minutes a day on this topic is a few minutes too many

apart from the obvious fact that bitcoins are selling at discount right now.. theres something else to consider too


say a whale bought at $1200 in 2013.. refusing to sell at a loss. so waits years
he sells now at $3200 and swims off back to fiat ocean

the buyer buys at $3200..  refusing to sell at a loss.
now there is one less person willing to sell above $1200..
now there is one more person willing to sell above $3200

as more whales sell they moves out of the bitcoin ocean and into the the fiat ocean
the buyers are then in the bitcoin ocean and as time goes on they all find value they all can agree on as their bottom line.

there is still a large majority in the bitcoin ocean just swimming at the $5800+ depth and they wont move to fiat ocean at any shallower depth than that.(65%)

the other 35% that can afford to swim at shallower depths. so they are moving to the fiat ocean. and as they do, they are introducing new swimmers into the bitcoin ocean. these new swimmers are happy with a 3200 depth and want the depth to get bigger

right now (doing the lengthy math) the cost of mining is a multiple of 104 of the amount of exahash mining.
so 32exa * 104 =3328
this 104 is based from maths of a s9 sold at $390, that is 1.3kwh with $0.05perkwh cost and is 14thash
if you want a easy multiple of the new s15.. that would be 117. but they are not out for delivery yet(deliveries begin in about a fortnight)

if the entire network was running s15 then the cost of mining at this weeks 32exa low, would be $3744

mining older hardware which you have already broken even in regards to hardware where you are now paying just electric
is 61.9x of exahash (based on $0.05/kwh)
meaning if you bought an old asic in late 2017 and got your $2k rewards after 5 months(i done that math too) and now just mining with electric as your cost
32*61.9=$1980.80

so s9 mining =104x of exahash
so s15 mining =117x of exahash
so electric only cost mining = 61.9x of exahash
use those numbers and you will have a quick and easy way to work out which is cheaper.. to buy or to mine

have a nice day

the reason i am using 104 as base cost. is that it is the cheapest hardware+electric majority.
those with earlier rigs that paid themselves off, most people use the hardware payoff to then buy new rigs so technically its not just pure electric as their hardware profit is respend and gone. so they are still in the loop of trying to recoup

you do know the "dev state" instigated the FORK/split.. bch came HOURS after, as a result of it

i cant actually believe you truly said that there was no split/fork and then mentioned the split/fork by saying there was no split/fork after the split/fork.
the split/fork was the the split/fork..
it got rid of the opposers so that the "dev state" would get their faked 100% loyalty count

put it this way
imagine you were in 2016 married.. but wanted to get involved with other people(networks). but only 35% of your family and friends thought it was a good idea to see other people(networks)

and so in march 2017 you decided things are not right no one is happy so you will get a divorce and you want the divorce finalised in august 2017 because you want to declare yourself 100% single by november so you can be involved with other people(networks)

so the divorce happened. you signed first and hours later your disgruntled parter went away to start their own life and now your able to declare you are 100% single and able to see other people(networks)

you are now saying there was no divorce after the divorce, and also saying that you have always been 100% single
(facepalm)

i truly think that squatter has just made the most stupid and ignorant myth to pretend that events didnt happen
sorry squatter but august 1st is august first. you cant hide it or pretend it didnt happen
even the "dev state" admit it happened. they gave it a few buzzwords. they even made hats which they wore to be proud of the divorce. they even changed their twitter account names to show which friend they would follow after the divorce.

p.s
i am neither a friend of the ex husband or ex wife of the previously united family. i just am someone that in this analogy is facepalming that the divorce occurred instead of all those involved communicating and coming to a compromise to keep it all united and move forward. rather than resorting to a divorce (which the "dev state" loudly and proudly call a bilateral split)