anyway putting doomads personal conversation aside.. yet again

back to the topic.
if cash wanted to do as windfury said. who cares they are an altcoin.
it has no relevance to bitcoin

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for

he does flip flop

one minute devs can do what they please no one can stop them. next minute devs dont decide but the community does..

"there is no code to prevent softforks"        = users dont decide on changes
"devs dont decide consensus"                    = users do decide on changes
"devs dont need permission"                      = users dont decide on changes
"users and miners decide"                         = devs do need permission

flipity flop

also inflight upgrades is what Luke JR calls them

funny thing with you doomad is you argue if i dont use your dev buddies terms then argue when i do
funny thing with you doomad is you argue that community voted for segwit .. then argue core didnt need a vote and nothing to stop core activating
funny thing with you doomad is you argue that events didnt happen then argue they did.

now heres the point.
a dev can write code all he likes he can write it on a buttcheek of a thai bride, on paper, on github.
that has never been my argument. (thats your flaw)

the thing i am always addressing yet again for the upteenth time you meander topics into personal attacks. is about MANDATING enforcement that their code ACTIVATES within the network

how many times do i have to say mandate and consensus.
while you cry about writing code as your deflection

last funny part
doomad
show me cod where i an enforcing anything.
you keep on trying and failing to make things sound like i am authoritarian yet i am not the one with the code that demands, mandates and splits the network.

if you dont like my words hit the ignore button
the only people who are mandating network changes are devs.
so go argue with them about what they can and cant do because code doesnt write itself. rules dont write itself. the dvs write the rules so go argue with them about if they should b doing what they are doing.

oh wait.. your response "no one should tell a dev what to do...". while hypocritically doomad wants to cry and tell people on a forum to have no say, no opinion and not talk. purely because ......... well who knows why doomad dislikes opposing opinions
truly funny he thinks my words on a forum actually changes networks rules...
this forum is not github. its not compiled into a binary. so i do laugh when doomad thinks my words are stopping devs

you gotta laugh doomad really thinks this forum gets compiled into code and actually affects the network.
when he wakes up and realises only developers write code and its what they write that actually changes the network. he will realise that malicious changes to the network are the fault of devs.. not forum users.

anyway putting doomads personal conversation aside.. yet again

back to the topic.
if cash wanted to do as windfury said. who cares they are an altcoin.
it has no relevance to bitcoin

so heres an idea
if core wanted to propose something for the bitcoin network should we let them do another mandated certain date/blockheight upgrade which involves diluting the community again. or use the original consensus mechanism whereby if they dont get consensus they should tuck their tail between their legs and go back to the drawing board and think of something the community would accept without any splits

imagine core had a consensus vote of
20% strongly oppose
45% abstain
35% opt for

gotta love doomads persistance with person attacks and social drama.



by having the original consensus bip and the community stick to it.

you do realise if core did actually stick with the 2015 consensus of the early version community compromise of segwit2mb. core would have got segwit activated in 2016 without the august 2017 hard fork (THEY call bilateral split)
without the diluting the community. without all the delay.

and i do laugh that you still think core should control the network without community "permission"
seems you forget consensus and again flip flop in and out of it

make up your mind. EG
"Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run."

^ so greg does need users and miners "permission" - "depending on what people run"

but yea i expect a fip flop about how greg can push his code through because he doesnt need communities "permission"
then later a post that greg has to abide by what the community "permit"

but you forget that if greg is using a inflight upgrade that makes 45% of nodes not need to opt-in or out. for something to activate or not. then greg adds code for his 35% friends to kill off the 20% that vote out.
then only counts his 35% friends.

thats not consensus.
the code to allow th backdoor activate or F**k off should not be used again. and should be stripped out.
but now we the community have no control because core would just say "we dont need your permission"
and dilute the community down to any opposers of core.

if you cant see that core are now a central power house. or your going to flip flip to deny they are central.. (the core) your missing the whole point of decentralisation and your missing why bitcoin was created to solve the byzantine generals issue without having to have a CORE general

(dont reply with a flip or a flop about saying does or doesnt need permission until you have convinced youself which. and then decide to stick to that narrative..
you have for months flip flopped in and out of needing or not needing. so try not to state other people are wrong unless you are ready to stick to one narrative)
)

anyway putting doomad interuption aside.

having upgrade proposals that use mandated dates/blockheights is not consensus.
diluting the community in half is not the solution

if a proposal cannot get majority. devs need to compromise and say they need to go back to the drawing board and make a new proposal
not double down on same proposal by adding a new method to force the proposal acceptance via a date/blockheight threat of adopt or get banned/rejected, which fakes a vote by only counting less than half the community

im laughing

the segwit supporters announced in spring (feb/march)
and even you show that the cash side didnt announce until june/july

so saying segwit side reacted to cash is funny..
cash reacted to segwit side

the uasf campaign began before april (USAF.co was Creation Date: 2017-03-22T22:19:32Z)
the UASF mentioned the august 1st date

bitcoin ABC began months later(bitcoinabc.org was Creation Date: 2017-05-09T14:59:42Z)

check the blockchain. you will see that all the events lead to the block 478558 being the target block

(core only accepted segwit flagged blocks at 13:23)

nodes opposing segwit couldnt stay on the network as is, so had to shift
(cash only accepted cash blocks at 18:12)

but it is funny how you try to down play segwit activation attempts as just small social stuff that didnt happen and how you avoid mentioning core devs.

goodluck in life. but blockchain data dont lie and even domain who-is search shows who started what

BCHabc and BCHSV
are just using OLD s9's that are obsolete.

BTC are moving to S15's and are realising they can hash at the same ~10min without needing as many units.
unlike 2013 where when asics first hit the pools they ramped up hashrate. which caused a spike. they are not repeating that, as it shot them in the foot with a 2 year limp after the adrenalin rush of a spike.

this time they are swapping and using less than a 2 for 1 swap to lower the hashrate and then come december. then rise the hashrate

if you check the charts you will see the curve of hashrate down started in october.. the abc sv drama was november. thus pools were changing asics BEFORE and abc sv drama even started.

what id love to see as a code solution to de-tag bitcoin from the PEOPLES vision of $america control

imagine exchanges(local decentralised) all agreed to stop measuring bitcoin in $ and instead measure it as
minimum wage hours

imagine right now all exchanges measure bitcoin as being 533 hours
just that 533 hours
and exchange move up or down in minute or seconds (not cents)

now people using the Rial can convert that to what their minimum wage per hour is to get a rial value

.. heres the international revolution part.
in america it would cost americans $4000
in iran it would cost iranians r882

meaning where-ever you ar in the world it only costs you 533 of your local hard labour employment to get 1btc
instead of having to work 2415 hours due to converting dollar to rial to get 1btc

benfits: labour equality world wide
detags peoples perception that $$ rule
people can then arbitrage the forex markets and flood forex with dollars as they buy rial to get cheap coins so that $/r imbalance occurs and brings the rial inline with $.. lifting iran out of 'poverty'

at a recent hashrate of 36exa, thats:
36,000,000 terrahash
36,000,000,000,000 megahash

if we stuck with PC (cpu) mining that would be
trillions of PC's needed. imagine a PC with a 500w Power supply each

but with asics thats only 1.28million ASICS using near-off 3 PC power supplies
so the equivelent of just ~4mill PC's worth of power

4mill vs trillions... which is greener?

i know some foolish people think signing blocks using PoS is greener. but they have no cost/risk in signing. it doesnt cost a penny to sign a block. meaning there is no cost for people to pool up 'stake' and syndicate themselves into controlling block creation which is a SECURITY RISK

by having a cost to mine prevents outsiders from attack and also makes bitcoin have a viable bottomline value because it actually costs funds to mine it. thus those mining it will not sell at a loss and wont sell it down to a penny

altcoins using PoS have no underlying cost of production and the price is pure speculation

(edited to stay relevant with recent prices)

in short
whil hardware cost per asic remain the same. you can use the magic multiplier numbers of 104-154 against the hashrate in exa hash to work out the mining cost range

EG
36exa * 104 =$3744
36exa * 154 =$5544

here you go. forgetting your own "compatibility" flip flops

nodes that are "compatible" did not get to opt-out. they were sheepishly treated as accepting without option
those that chose to use nodes that oppose and want something else were thrown out.

(block rejections) (ban node)

consensus is not about rejecting blocks/banning nodes.
consensus is about having proposals. and those proposals only activate when there is majority community agreement

banning nodes and rejecting blocks first is not consensus. its about apartheid. (splitting the community and only accepting votes from one side) to fake a consensus

EG apartheid analogy
july 2017: 2 black people, 4 mixed race, 4 white people on a bus.
august1st 2017: get the 2 blacks off the bus and then not be concerned about the 4 mixed race
mid august: get the bus driver to count the votes of white people who want only white people on a bus.(4/4)
november 2017: now buses are only for white people


july 2017: 20% nonsegwit, 45% compatible, 35 segwit ready.
august1st 2017: get the 20% nonsegwit off the network and then not be concerned about the 45% compatible
mid august: get the corecode to count the votes of segwit1x flag who want only segwit1x on the network (35/35=100%)
november 2017: now the network only has segwit1x

remember 45% "compatible" were not voting. they were sheeped as abstainers

bitcoin has privacy
  show me a command/line of code that asks for your name and house location
  show me on the blockchain anyones name/house address

bitcoin the currency is decentralised.
  show me a command that says do not relay/confirm transactions intended for iran/china/korea or anywhere.
  show me a command that says only transact with americans

iwill say this though. the fee war has priced some countries out of wanting to use bitcoin for daily use because the fee's are higher than a hours minimum wage for some country. (this needs changing)
but thats about stop using the business that developed the code for removing the fee formulae
you cant ask bitcoin code to self edit. its not AI
you need to stop using a certain dev team(business/people)  and instead get other PEOPLE/teams to develop code and have people decide to activate a fee formulae code that makes it cheap to use for all countries

bitcoin doesnt kill people.. people do

its the people/businesses around bitcoin(but are not bitcoin themselves) that need privacy and decentralisation.

the solution. dont use businesses that require regulatory complience.
code cannot do this. people can

if PEOPLE stop using regulated businesses. then people wont see bitcoin as regulated.
because it isnt.

also the topic is about IRANS situation
so people of iran should stop using businesses that are regulated
again if your bank imposes rules. stop using your bank

people are the resistance because bitcoin is already not complying because bitcoin has no fiat complience code

take the alcohol prohibition era.
alcohol is alcohol. it cannot decide where it gets deliverd and who gets to drink it. PEOPLE DO
when governments prohibited businesses from selling it or asked businesses to set up sting operations to offer it just to report people who asked for it.. the solution was simple. people stopped going to those businesses.

people started their own local brewing groups and clubs. and they had parties drinking all the alcohol they could wanted.

you cannot ask a bottle of beer to not comply to regulations. its for the people who want a bottle of beer to find a way to get it locally so that they can then drink with international friends and family.

the reason i say locally is because how are you going to get the fiat in your pocket into bitcoin as the first step to internationally trading using bitcoin.

its baby steps
convert your fiat locally. then trade your btc internationally. then the international recipient can convert their btc thy get locally into thir local fiat in their pocket.

so if you stop worrying about american exchanges by avoid thinking, using, doing business with them. then american fiat regulations dont apply to you..
so if you stop worrying about iran banks by avoid thinking, using, doing business with them. then iran banks regulations dont apply to you..

bitcoin is the solution and doesnt need change because bitcoin does not have regulation. people just need to stop using BUSINESSES that are regulated

bitcoin is resisting because bitcoin has no fiat regulatory complience code.

its PEOPLE that need to resist
EG
if your FIAT bank tells you that you cant deposit into a certain FIAT bank of an exchange. only YOU have access to YOUR fiat funds of the bank YOU bank with.
so YOU as a person can:
take your fiat out and find someone local to trade fiat to btc.

only YOU have the power to take YOUR fiat out of YOUR bank and go to YOUR local bitcoin meetup. its YOUR bank account aftr all
i as another PERSON cannot get to YOUR bank account and withdraw YOUR fiat and attend YOUR towns meetup to convert YOUR fiat to BTC.

so help your fellow iranians. start something local so your not affected by american decisions. because code cant do what humans can do.

bitcoin is just code
it has not coded itself to coinbase and coinbases KYC

bitcoin does not ask for people addresses.
if you in iran want to avoid COINBASES KYC.. just dont use coinbase
if you in iran want to have freedom just find someone in your area to trade with

bitcoin is not regulated
american businesses are.
so simple solution dont use american businesses

find someone local to you

i do not want regulatory compliance.
but it seems you need to understand you cant sit and cry that american businesses(not bitcoin) have regulatory compliance. without actually realising that you can simply avoid regulatory compliance by avoiding using american businesses

find and create something local to you. and you will have your solution

bitcoin cannot create a business because its just code. its the PEOPLE and businesses that use bitcoin that need to use their arms legs, mouths.

so you as a person should not ask code to detach itself from businesses because bitcoin is not attached to it. its just code
again
its just code that does not know fiat laws. has no lines of code or commands that comply with fiat laws and does not ask for fiat law KYC stuff

its for PEOPLE to detach from BUSINESSES that kyc.
again
you as a person should find someone local and trade with. its that simple
you will then find out that bitcoin code and bitcoins blockchain has not revealed that you and someone else traded in a coffee shop because bitcoin does not ask or demand KYC or demand you comply with fiat regulation

lets make it simpler
say your allergic to peanuts. you simply avoid going to a peanut factory

lastly it was the cores side that were not happy with thier 35% spring 2017 support. which is why core devs (luke JR) proposed the mandatory activation.

you do realise there is this thing called the blockchain. its a immutable archive of events and transactions.
if you were to actually check the blockchain data you will see that core triggered it at block 478558.

the funny thing is core supporters actually shouted that cash didnt trigger until hours later.
(core only accepted segwit flagged blocks at 13:23)
(cash only accepted cash blocks at 18:12)

the code that achieved this split was wrote by core devs (luke JR UASF)
https://www.uasf.co/#uasf-signaling
please do your research next time

lastly. its the mindset of some that bitcoin(network) should be owned by one team brand. wherby they go on the 'defend the dev' parade and try to make it sound that anyone who is against a dev is against bitcoin. purely to continue their mantra that bitcoin should have one central team.(facepalm)

its a real shame that those people cannot distinguish the difference between one dev team control from the concept of a whole network concept of consensus of teams.
have a nice day.

actually it was the devs that advocated bilateral split... its their buzzword

i am against throwing opposers off the network so minorities get a faked consensus. but the devs advocate it (UASF)

i am against the idea of mandatory forks.

i am against single brands of software deciding whole network decisions,
i advocate consensus of community acceptance via joint communication to find healthy compromise which a majority can accept on and stay one network

i am against splitting the network just so one team can get their way.

WAKE UP and stop the fud, atleast research consensus
if you dont want to research what actually happened network-wise

atleast research your topics and stop the social finger pointing unless you can prove it

show one post where i say i love and advocated bilateral split and ill show many  where i am shunning the devs for performing one

also throwing my username into the same sentance as cash is foolish too. but i can see your motivations are clear now
you really have gone full FUD.

computers are centralised

there is only:
intel
AMD

ahhhh kill all computers
(^note sarcasm^)

mining is not centralised because although some reddit/twitter PR campaign screams "china51%".. thats fake news
even 'antpool' which suggest to have 12.8% at time of post. is actually:
half a dozen stratums in half a dozen countries with half a dozen different coin reward addresses

some of these separate entities tagged as "antpool" do different things, such as:
some do empty block mining
some do rewards to bech32(bc1q segwit) addresses and add segwit transactions from mempool
some just handle legacy.

all revealing that "antpool" is diverse in power/decisions/location
things like slushpool is tagged under the "china51%" yet they are managed in thailand and world wide stratum for asics anywhere
F2pool is world wide gateway for asics anywhere
btc.com has stratums and farms in many locations

so.. dont take reddit/twitter screams too seriously unless you background check/find the source stats.
in short
DYOR(do your own research)

im saying a limited few can afford to be whales and should they decide thy could push it that low.
im saying limited few.
i am not saying confident the price will drop that low as the buy pressure from others is at play too.

EG those that have higher mining costs wont want to waste electric mining at higher costs. so they will use their money to just buy cheap coins. thus resisting against the whales.

anyway. this is all temporary data and it shifts alot.
already i have rechecked bitmain and now there is this
T15(asic boost) = 23thash @$950~
S15(asic boost) = 28thash @$1450~

so using the now advertised S15 now has a magic multiplier of 118.. similar as previous cheap s9's
and the T15 magic number is 109.
and second hand S9 sold at $390 is magic number 104

which at todays LOW hashrate is 36exa..
S9=3744(delivery started this week)
s9=3996(prvious batch already mining)
T15=3924(delivery christmas+ but "QA testing" gives whales coins)
S15=4248(delivery christmas+ but "QA testing" gives whales coins)

yep they want people to buy up their old S9's so lowered the S9's and ramped up the the s15's(savvy)

so we are already staying above $3000... and infact moving a lil higher(mining hash/cost) and away from $3000. even when there was a chance(market whales) of going down to $3000

again anyone making a loss mining will start to put some buying power into bitcoin to move prices up while cheap

my summary point
watching the mining costs has shown more correlation to bottomline markets.. than them people who self draw their own trend lines by hand (no stats just eyes and hand drawing) on market history charts

but thats the beauty of consensus. to reject rule changes unless majority agree
its the whole point

its why satoshi solved the byzantine generals issue.

by having consensus rules there can be alternative brands on the network. they all follow current rulesets.
. as for upgrades the network has to choose what they (whole community) jointly go for.

but if there is only one general making orders and holding and writing the rulebook(one brand) then there is no choice. its just follow the new rules this single general has written or end up being left out.

also read the entire context. not just someones 'cut' of a quote
read this
read it. and then without bias. read it as if satoshi was the minority. so you can see both sides of his argument.
HE cant simply upgrade if he is the minority.(EG imagine he wanted to remove code to cause a fee war or promote a non-blockchain network)(EG imagine he became corrupt/malicious)

notice how HE is talking about how its a hassle for HIM (sole controller/general/central point) cant just upgrade if there are alternative versions.
again thats the beauty of consensus. no one should have central control


the november 2016-spring 2017 was a good show of it in action. (65%no : 35%yes to segwit1x)
events in timeline order
late 2015: core proposed segwit1mb. community wanted more than 1mb. some wanted 16mb, 8mb, 4mb....
a consensus agreement came in a variant of segwit2x. ill call it segwit2mb to seperate the agreement from the later variant called segwit2x

the segwit2mb would have got high majority acceptance. and was the consensus/compromised agreement of late 2015

early 2016: luke JR backed out of segwit2mb by saying his initial agreement of segwit2mb was a empty non contractual agreement and he no longer wants to abide by it because he is not in power enough to code anything to enforce core can put it into code.
(yet a year later lukejr releases mandated code(UASF) as well as other 3 card tricks.. to force in segwit1x(hypocrite))

november 2016: core released a consensus vote of segwit1x with hopes of activation by christmas.....
spring 2017: still no majority. core was sat at 35% and struggling to move

core got a no vote for segwit1mb because core backed out of an early varient of segwit2x which was the communitys agreement of compromise from 65% wanting more baseblock (some originally wanted 16mb, 8mb, then 4) and the 35% wanting a 1mb baseblock and segwit..

if there was 1 brand. core would have got segwit1mb activated in christmas 2016
but would have had 65% unhappy community left stalled out and a "menace to the network".

but instead of core going going back to a segwit2mb agreement. core doubled down on only wanting segwit1mb

(luke and his colleagues released the other kardashian drama of a possibility of segwit2x but only if segwit1mb is activated first(NYA agreement (DCG.CO)).. this is the reference to luke being a hypocrit above where the USAF+NYA MANDATED segwit1mb and threw off the 65% out of the vote because of "backward compatible" nodes dont need to opt-in to segwit1mb.. and any opposers not "compatible" are banned/rejected)

summer 2017: core got what they wanted. yet the community is still divided

bitcoin is not meant to be one general making and updating the rules. its meant to be the army of generals(community) upholding the law and the community to decide on new laws
a reference client should not be a rule MAKER. but a holder of current rules so that people can refer and know the rules

the idea of bitcoin was that everyone was a general. rules stay the same unless the majority agree on a new proposal. yes it makes it harder for one general to change the rules... but thats the point of it. there should not be a single general.

satoshi later realised that he had become the single general and everyone was going to him. which is why he left.
yet 5 years later it went full circle where core is now the single general(central point)

it should never be made EASY for one general to change the rules. mandating changes and splitting the community.
having multiple brands should prevent there being a single general so that the community have power not a single general

if core want to be a reference client then thats being a reference point of only CURRENT RULES
separately if they want to PROPOSE new rules. ok. propose them as a separate version to a REFERENCE CLIENT.. but dont then use mandated stuff to enforce their proposal with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks.

instead of single brand. instead of mandated rule...
let the community consensus around it. and if a majority is not found, compromise..

the 65% against core compromised down to segwit2mb in 2015. yet core have not shown signs of listening to the community to compromise their roadmap. thy instead evicted opposers(usaf) and sheep herded the compromisers(NYA segwit2x).. and once segwit1x got activated. killed of the 2x to just stay with the 1x