fixed that for you

bitcoin needs to go back to true consensus. not the trojan back door they just opened. many many people outside a certain group are noticing that bitcoin is now weaker security because of this new backdoor.
yes the certain group will promote that it makes their job of activating features easier. but it also makes malicious actors who also use the same method easier.

if you care about bitcoin security. you should not be thinking about whats easiest for a certain dev team. but whats most secure for a decentralised user to fight off code changes that the decentralised users may not want.

...
as for scaling BITCOIN. instead of moving users OFF the bitcoin network. into vaulted co-permissioned factory managed networks of unaudited payments and requiring watch towers, etc. how about just trying to actually stop making bitcoin other network compatible. and instead make bitcoin actually scale beyond 7tx/s(600k tx a day)
satoshi himself expressed the numbers back in 2009-10 that the limitation is 600k tx a day.. mempools are always containing transactions, people are waiting more than 1 block. thus obviously segwit has not fixed, offered or given any scaling benefit to solve the issue.
segwits purpose to to make bitcoin compatible with other networks so that people dont use bitcoin

lastly
although segwit fake counts bytes of a baseblock. to bypass a rule.
the rule was put inplace for hard drive storage count.
hard drive bytes per transaction of actual full nodes have shown that segwit has NOT helped bring more transactions per hard drive byte storage.
blockchain stats have shown the average transaction count decline
and th updates have also made is so bloated spammers used to be able to bloat a block with just 5tx of 4k sigops. can now bloat a block of 5tx of 16k sigops. which is not helpful. its the opposite of helpful

...
for those trying so hard to promote LN
LN is not a layer 2 of bitcoin.
LN was not designed to be a feature for bitcoin.
bitcoin had to be altered to fit LN

LN is a separate network for multiple coins. meaning what will happen for them people that want to be fullnodes to monitor channels locks to avoid double spends. is they will end up needing to be masternodes where they will have to monitor litecoin, vertcoin, bitcoin and other LN compatible coin lock mechanisms

LN does not help reduce hard drive bloat. instead its just taking users away from 100% sole control push transactions and moved it into another network that will require masternode watchtower factories who will charge to be the vaults of onchain funds to then pass out unaudited channel payments of 12 decimals. so that they can charge a fee for their service

people need to really understand not just the rose tinted empty promises. but also the stark realities of proposals. just taking a proposal as good because "trust a dev" is not a good mindset of a decentralised network

AGD or he could go full old school with the old 'shoe on head' ID proof.

seeing as you admire the word "state" to refer to certain group of elitist authoritarians. i shall refer to certain dv team as "dev state" for your benefit


first sentance i was beginning to think you were starting to understand the consensus mechanism of 2009-2013

second sentance you went full censorship-centralist authoritarian and it seems you prefer a central dev "state" in control
but atleast you confident enough to admit your preference.

in a consensus mechanism that existed 2009-2013 anyone could propose anything. code it, run nodes release the source and let anyone run it. with no fear of being thrown out the network. because proposals wont activate without high majority consensus. so it would cause no bad effects on the network, because proposals would not be active unless majority had run them.

funny thing is other full nodes such as xt, classic, bu and others never made mandates. they were happy to just run nodes and see and wait to find out if they got popular. they even adjusted and compromised down a few features to be more of what the community were looking for. but again never made mandates or coercions or threats. it was just run it and see what happens if nothing happens then they walk off with tail between their legs and come back with another proposal that appeals more to the community.

but these days the "dev state" would throw certain nodes off the network before the certain nodes even got majority support simply to make it appear that the "dev state" has 100% loyalty..... hense why altcoins are being made.
"the dev state" were losing with only 35% vote before their consensus bypass idea was implimented.

the "dev state" should have just went back to the drawing board and actually code something that would have NATURALLY and using the 2009-2013 mechanism got them an activation. without having to resort to threats of a mandated contentious fork("dev state" advocated buzzword "bilateral splits")

this is why developers not part of "dev state" are now just giving up on the "dev state" version of bitcoin and making alts. because of the "dev state" censorship and control over what proposals even make it into "the roadmap"

p.s the NYA signee's are part of the central "dev state" which you seem to adore as kings.

the segwit2x part of the NYA was just subterfuge to rally the sleeping sheep into accepting segwit. with a empty promise of 2x if and only if segwit1x got activated.

barry silbert DCG.co organised NYA
barry silbert pays pieter wuille, gregmaxwell, samson mows, luke Jr's wages
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice blockstream, notice btcc

as for the jgarzig, gavin andressen implementation of NYA
DCG.co/portfolio/#b   - notice BLOQ

i already told you many times. it was a 3 card trick
well i should say a 3 hat trick. samson mow and core devs were very proud to wear their UASF hats

i still find is so strange how a year later. even when financial data, even when block data. even when code exists and even admissions by thee devs themselves has made the situation clear.. that you and certain chums of your are denying it all and pretending one minute that bitcoins consensus is as open as 2009-2013.. and then a few minutes later flip your opinion to that of defending the "dev state" actions.

there is no point in you trying to dismiss history. blockdata and code doesnt lie. and its all found in the blockdata that certain things did happen to fake the 100% "dev state" loyalty


now imagine this.
imagine a dev team that was not part of "dev state" done a mandated activation.. would you herold them as new kings. or would you be arguing that their approach and method of activation was wrong and not consensus

i in #8 also said i predict you would then use a social media account in the name of james.. and it happened. the james account is trying to promote doublespend account and the double spend account is trying to highlight james. account.but neither is proving who received 10btc
your just social drama about a personal life from 1970+
trying to gleam some fame.

now what if i said that the 1dud address was mine. and i asked you to prove its not..
go on try..
if you dont have the private key, the funds are not yours.
thats like rule one of bitcoin.

the reason i believe you are james and james is you is that both accounts lack detailed knowledge of bitcoin. and if both of you were highly involved and doings stuff and part of the inner circle of 2008-2009 that were there to receive bitcoin in the first week. then you would know much more then the basics of bitcoin.

all your 2 accounts are doing is telling each other how YOU have been involved is X or Y projects or know people.
kinda worse than craig wright failed attempts.

sorry folks for doomads topic invasion for his usual dev kiss ass dev defending meanders.

now back to the topic.
bitcoin for the last 3 years has not innovated in regards to scaling. devs have only cared about making bitcoin 'other network' compatible

if anyone wants to prove me wrong then its simple
show me a day where transactions broke the 7tx/s (600k tx a day) barrier that has existed since 2009

show me stats that are atleast say 1million a day which is like the 3tx/s under 1mb rule utility.. but spread out into the 4mb space(thus 12tx/s) that devs pretend is fully utilisable
(i know its not. but im just trying to prove a point.. im kind of being rhetorical with using a bit of reverse psychology)

even if under a fully open 4mb base block which was a 2014-15 proposal allowing upto 28tx/s
i am asking to show an easy 12tx/s day..(1mill a day) to prove 4mb utility of 3tx/s per mb (never gonna happen)
or even a 7tx/s+ day which means bitcoin has surpassed satoshis measure quoted in 2009-10

if anyone tries to pretend numbers dont exceed that amount because demand isnt there. i will instantly counter with mempool stats that mempools exceed 1mb because there is demand. i will also instantly counter that people had to wait more than one block because blocks are full
so under the understanding of full blocks and such and the 4mb promises of devs. we should be at over 7tx/s. i am not suggesting 28tx/s need to be proven. but atleast prove breaking passed the 600k tx a day barrier thats existed since 2009

you are not proving anything
you are yammering on about your personal life trying to make yourself famous by mentioning random events like being in a PLATO project and giving directions to crays

stop trying to make yourself famous by pretending to have got 10btc..
if you cant prove you got 10btc. then stop yammering on about your social life

your social life of the 1970's onwards is no proof
all your doing by highlighting your social life is trying to beat ur chest like a gorilla as if your significant

those nodes are not full nodes (1037 flag nodes) so they didnt get a vote they were bypassed.

BCH forked off AFTER the core network mandate bip.
check the blockchain.
core devs mandated first then bch came after AS A RESULT
even you know this
(and dont meander about it wasnt core devs... luke JR was publicising and praising it. he is even still now proud of his efforts. he doesnt need you trying to say he wasnt involved he doesnt need you dismissing his efforts.. he is loud and proud of it)
even you posted that core supporters mandated bip was introduced in march and bch reacted months later knowing they would get thrown off.. they had NO CHOICE

but atleast your coming to the realisation that nodes were not counted because they were taken off the network
you have made one step forward. but you seem to lack reading the blockchain height to see core supporters mandated bip came first and bch came second. so go research that.
blockchain data doesnt lie

i dont endorse or am not part of EB. thats your foolish mindset.
there are many many many many many ways to scale bitcoin but because EB was the only one before the mandate even trying to oppose cores roadmap i thought its better than nothing. i to thought 2mb base+segwit(2016 version) was better than cores 1xsegwit. even segwit 2x(2017 version) was a better than nothing.
but again core didnt want that
the segwit2x(2017 version) was not even a proposal. it was a DCG.co endorsed subterfuge to get segwit1x activated and then backtrack the 2x element.


but again staying on topic:

thouands of orders of next gen asics are alrady inplace bitmain have said.
delivery is not until the final week of december.
so ofcourse we are in the 'lag' stage between users turning off old miners and receiving their new rigs.

just wait until the deliveries begin late december and you will see the change occur

i have been talking about scaling. you have been talking about your love and loyalty to core devs
but to address your meanders, just to put you to bed, yet again

nodes were thrown off the network in august to FAKE count consensus
other nodes were told they didnt need to upgrade to vote in favour of segwit because core bypassed them. they were not counted.
core got their FAKE95% not by doing true consensus.
the amount of nodes that were actually fully segwit ready was not even 50%

you know this.
it has been discussed repeatedly in many topics.. which you butt in to meander off topic by poking the bear simply because i mention core in negative light as part of the topic
you trying to bring it up again as if you are bringing up fresh info. is your flaw.
do i really need to suggest to you to do some research

mr MEANDER off topic doomad.. this is the several topic where by you have tried to meandr the topic into social drama to defend a dev.. but you poked the bear. so ill bite


you have been told several times
core can code what they like. they can write what they like. but making mandated for the community to accept it or "fork off" is not what consensus is.
if they cant get a fair consensus vote they should go back to the drawing board and compromise thir ego's to make something the community would accept without having to use mandates and consensus bypasses.

EG if they stuck with the 2015 agreement of majority they would have got segwit activated by late 2016 without a split, and the rest of the community would have got a bigger base block.. but we both know thats not what the core roadmap wanted. so that didnt happen. instead core got things how they wanted due to the august '17 mandate because they knew the november '17 deadline was approaching and they only had 35% community vote. whn the mandate first become publicised

you have been told that several times now
plus i am not demanding anything. im pointing out the obvious
show me where i demand. show me code where i have made mandated proposals

you wont find any. but i can show you code by core devs that mandate and bypass consensus..
i already have. many times. again your forgetful because you want to pretend core are your kings and deserve to be the controllers of bitcoins code where the only route forward is a core roadmap

if you dont like what i have to say hit the ignore button. i also showed you where to find it many times

---

oh and if you think as a average joe that if you kiss enough dev's ass that you can make money on LN, sorry to burst your bubble but you wont.
the LN factories will make the money. and they will be run by the portfolio group of DCG.co
i say this as i find it strange that your not interested in the bitcoin network, but your always found defending devs that wish to scream "blockchains cant scale, LN is the future"
in the last 3 years the devs have no interest in scaling the bitcoin network. thir roadmap has been to make the network compatible with others to divert users away from the network. and only innovate smart contracts just to not make the tx/s even worse than 3tx's

---

so staying with the topic
if you think bitcoin has scaled then show me a single day where bitcoin has had over 600,000 tx for the day (7tx/s)
come on show me when blocks are full that there are more tx/s than numbers satoshi mentioned back in 2009-10 (7tx/s). show me the idea where devs pretend the 4mb is full utility space = 28tx/s (2.4mill tx a day)
come on show my their promises from 3 years ago

if you can show me how they have scaled bitcoin in the last 3 years. and i dont mean make bitcoin compatible to be bypassed when core deem fit and compatible with other non bitcoin networks to sway people away from bitcoin.
i actually mean scaling bitcoin.
show me stats of atleast 600,000tx a day and ill shut my mouth. come on. show me some stats
or are you just here to defend dev's ego

stats please not social drama and insults.. just stats.
if you only wish to reply with insults. save yourself some time. as your reply will just be void of any substance

LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network. for multiple different coins to use.
it does not scale bitcoin it simply makes people use something that is not the bitcoin network

here is the illusion- demythed
bitcoin is be your own bank.. so imagine we are the banks and the onchain network is the SWIFT network that takes 10 minutes to settle. but the swift banking network only manages at best 7tx/s and averages 3tx/s

now imagine LN(visa) come along. and say if you lock your balance up into out factories(vaults) you can use a visa network that also supports the euro, yuan, pound and other currencies..

now is this scaling the swift network or making less people want to use the swift network. think about the 3tx/s on the swift network. is it increasing beyond 7tx's.. is it really at 28tx's right now....... nope

instead the swift network is still around 3tx's even though blocks are 'full' and so people are just going to avoid wanting to return to the swift network. they will just let their funds remain lucked in visa vaults and just play around with visa payments and if they dont want to use visa no more eventually find the swift network still too expensive and slow and non-innovative to return to. thus they will atomic swap and withdraw other currencies on a better be your own bank network such as euros "faster payment"

blah blah blah..

more social drama...
no one cares about your love life or some youtube fame or fame on another website.

no bitcoin proof=no proof
no matter how much you yammer on about your social life from the 1950's->2008 .. its all meaningless

stop with the social dramatics of trying to get famous.

yes nothing stops that...(being compatible with active rules) until core want a change. then things like august 2017 occur where those that dont want core updates get thrown out the network


2009-2013 bitcoin was not a permissioned system. but now core is able to control the flow of upgrades and throw out anyone that wishes to dismiss core.

your the hypocrit that flip flops saying core cant do something because they are not allowed due to community concensus, then you flip flop to say they should be allowed because no one should tell them not to.

everyone seen the REKT campaigns. everyone seen the split in august 2017. you cant deny that.

now tell me what other FULL NODES are allowed to make proposals that have not been rekt or thrown off the network.
.. wait for it.. oh there are none. the only non core full nodes on the network are the ones that have to follow core rules and be compatible to cores roadmap if they want to stay on the network. not following cores rules when core want to upgrade does not stop core. but does throw core objectors off the network.
if any other team done what core supports done . guess what. core would rekt them off.

doomad you have been shown on many topics. i have told you to atleast look at the blockchain data and history but it seems after just days you try to poke your had into new conversations and pretend months of proving you wrong never happened and you just start your core defending and ass kissing core devs all over again.

you cant change history by insulting me. the blockchain daya is the blockchain data. it is immutable and anyone can check that forks occured. this forum although not immutable can show the rekt campaigns.

the nodes can show there has not been

there have been many examples. but just imagine a community of 1000 plus developers making the best of bitcoin. rather than diluting things down into dozens of altcoins (im not talking about script kiddy forks/copy and paste coins)

as XP is not supported
can dev's also now come to the conclusion that bitcoins conservatism should now move forward to hardware post 2006(post xp era) and not keep harping on that delays in scaling is due to wanting to be compatible with such old hardware and old internet speeds previous to 2006

infact as vista is not supported by microsoft, thus going by gmaxwells lenience to drop support for operating systems not supported by microsoft
can dev's also now come to the conclusion that bitcoins conservatism should now move forward to hardware post 2009(post vista era) and not keep harping on that delays in scaling is due to wanting to be compatible with such old hardware and old internet speeds previous to 2009

we really need to get moving passed the pre millenium mindset of
kodak: "digital media wont scale because floppy disks are 1.44mb"

and move passed the propaganda of 4mb base block = servers
because a 256gb storage media is the size of a thumbnail

and we need to move passed the propaganda of terrabytes of data by midnight.
a 4tb hard drive only costs a single person one weeks groceries
at 4mb block FULL UTILITY (when conservatism finally relinquishes and removes the witness scale factor to allow full legacy utility)
4mb blocks=UPTO 208gb a year = upto 20 years to fill a 4tb hard drive

as for internet speeds.
even things like facetime(both up/down load) want 1.2mbps so lets not be playing pre millenial games of dialup.
even africa, russia, and korea have good internet
we are in the fibre era not the dialup era

its time to put the conservative excuses aside when doesnt fit the narrative of 'blockchains cant scale and bank-esq factory vaults(co-signed non blockchain, non audited payments of non byzantine generals nodes) are told to be the future. especially when the network offering such niche service is not even a network dedicated only as a bitcoin sole only use feature. but designed as a neutral network for multiple coins meaning less people will want to use bitcoin if other networks offer something better.

if you care for the bitcoin network more than the commercial service offering that will become LN factories watchdogging users channels. then atleast start innovating bitcoins onchain scaling. beyond 7tx/s. and do it BEFORE introducing more bloating smart contract features.

in short atleast get rid of the witness scale factor so that the 4mb is fully utilisable by both segwit and legacy transactions.
after all how many pools and users are using older nodes these days. even this topic is proving that versions 0.11 are outdated and buggy

1. cant be inflated? you might want to check on that.
there was in 2009 -2013 an idea of limiting bitcoin to 2.1quadrillion sharable units of value(satoshi's). plans are already being made to expand that to being 2.1quintillion sharable units. which will continue the mining reward/halving process well beyond 2140
(millisats)
imagine there were only 10 banana's in the world. then imagine there being 10billion slices of banana.
banana's are no longer rare and out of reach of people to buy.so they have lost their.. accuse the pun. appeal

2. running a node, is not the same as the decentralised power of consensus. it just ends up as you being an distributed data archive. not a decentralised community of consensus

3. many teams have tried to offer proposals. but ended up finding it easier to just make their own altcoin than try fighting the group roadmap

4. im not saying its the worse. im saying its no longer holding up to the same promises/ethos/initial idea as 2009-2013

centuries later you can still buy tulips

people that bought houses before 2008 were at a loss after..
... years later you can still buy houses

price drama is never a gaurantee always upward motion.
as mr miagi told danielson as part of his karate and economy and life lessons while painting a fense
"up, down, up down".
you will get a slap on wrist if you think only "up up up" works best

economy is like the waves. or a crane. up AND down
so go to a beach stand on a wooden post and while looking at the ocean and doing the crane position. you will learn

you cant stay up for long, the waves cant stay up. you will fall and have to rebalance. the waves will crash and return

so just enjoy and learn from each event and train your mind how to cope with it.

unlike some altcoins that when they launch they begin again at day one with no transaction history. BCH chain got split mid 2017(o below) from btc and retained a copy of btc transaction history.
then
BCHsv chain split last month(e below) from bch, retaining a copy of bch history(thus also retaining btc history before o too).

2009----------------------------------o-----2018 btc
                                                   |
2009----------------------------------o---e-2018 bch
                                                         |
2009--------------------------------------e-2018 bchsv

so if you had funds unspent on btc before (o) and you have not spend them as bch before (e) then you automatically have funds that you can spend on bchsv AND you can spend the same funds on bch AND you can spend funds on btc.

in short say you had $10.
but now have $10 american, $1 canadian and $0.50 australian
and all are fighting over which community is the real "dollar"

bitcoin core is the group in control of btc's rules/upgrade/proposal process
bitcoinabc, btc1 is the groups in control of bch's rules/upgrade/proposal process
bitcoinSV is the  group in control of bchsv's rules/upgrade/proposal process

bitcoin is code. so its developers you should be scrutinising

^ selective usage of words

"not controlled by the state" yet the upgrade proposals and new code is controlled by a group.
and if the community do not follow the group. the group wont care because the group bypasses the community with "compatibility" and if the community added code that makes the group unable to bypass using "compatibility" then the group simply mandate a "accept group rules or f**k off" method

bitcoins 2009-2013 true consensus mechanism has not been used as intended since