maybe instead of defending them. realise they release code BEFORE community input/conversation.

EG
they had segwit roadmap plan from 2014. before community input
they had code before community got to download.
the comunity had a november 2016-spring 2017 decision and devs lost.
but that was not acceptable to devs. hense the mandatory august 2017.. (no conspiracy. check it all out (i wont use the R word.))

it was not a concept of taking in random community idea's and going with the best one. it was them build thier road map and sway the community to adopt.
you might want to check it all out (i wont use the R word.)

as for me insulting . thats the bear biting the poke. not me poking the bear.
same went for your social drama involvements
if you word count actual insults i give against. say insults you give. you will be surprised by the result

all i said to you before as REPLIES was to re***rch(i know you dont like the word) .. check it out.
you were the one that resorted to flame wars.

anyways. things wont change no matter how much i kiss ass of a dev. the only main issue is that devs should change to be a more OPEN community. and not REKT things that are not their plan..

sorry but letting them lead and control, and require kissing the royal ring is not what decentralisation is about

funnier part. craig said he cant touch the satoshi stash as its locked to a trust.. (lie but funny)
yet the sv coins are not. so craig if was satoshi could move the sv coins.
...... years later no movement.

craig making sv will be his own downfall as he wont be able to debate reason to not move useless coins to prove identity.
thus using is useless altcoin to try getting fame and pretend his useless altcoin has power to change anything. is a double hit to his reputation

are all of those 667 that continue on from a certain blockheight. or restart from 0(genesis) and are just using bitcoin code with minimal tweaks.

i have personally never bothered thinking about the altcoins. but now i realise i have 60-667 multiples of my hoards. i might just have to pull out my private keys from 2012 from cold store. and start claiming and swapping some to btc(if any still are active)

i raise many points many times. the thing is, you meander in when the 4 letter word that a center of an apple is called is mentioned. thus you only see that point.

its like if i mentioned "you never see a blue lambo on the road". suddenly you start looking out for it and start only noticing blue lambo's and reacting/get emotional to it everytime you see one. not noticing the lack of observation and lack of emotion of other vehicles

that said the 4 letter word you defend is actually the ones that do type the code and do release the code because all others have been pushed off the network or pushed out the relay layer into the downstream "compatibility" layer of the network topology.

so just running nodes wont change the rules. just mining hashpower wont change the rules. we need actual devs to code rules. which goes against your perception of what devs should be doing. which is what we disagree with.
devs should be listening to the community.

again whats the point of me posting something about a rule change like the second part of your reply. if your side feels that devs should not listen to the community and just do whatever they please.
do you atleast see my point that the network should not have a power house that ignores the community, simply because it doesnt fit "their" roadmap

but seeing as your on their side how about just forwarding the second part of your post to them. you can even say its your idea if it helps. i have thrown many idea's out and let anyone take them and use it as their own idea. like i said a few times im not writing code as a authoritarian demanding people follow me. i never have. i just inform people what could/should be done and hope it wakes people up to see there are other options than just the 4 letter word's roadmap, and that we should not just blindly sheep follow a roadmap as if its the only way

finally doomad sees the light about "compatibility not = full node".. and how "compatible" is not good for the network..
one merit earned... may he accept the merit and drop that social drama debate now he seen the light.

onto the topic
the hard fork of removing full nodes that can only accept 1mb blocks has been done already, in mid 2017. reference the "compatible" nodes still on the network are not full nodes no more.

all is required is to remove the "witness scale factor" and the full 4mb can be utilised by legacy transactions AND segwit transactions.
this too can have positives by removing alot of wishy washy lines of code too and bring things back inline with a code base that resembled pre segwit block structuring to rsemble a single block structure where everything is together that doesnt need to be stripped/"compatible".
yes the "compatible" nodes would stall out and not add blocks to their hard drive. but these nodes are not full nodes anyway so people using them might aswell just use litewallets and bloom filter transaction information they NEED for personal use.

we will then have the network able to actually handle more tx/s at a 4x level rather than a 1.3-2.5x level(which current segwit blockstructure LIMITS (yep even with 4mb suggested weight. actual calculations limit it to 2.5x compared to legacy 1mb))

...
as for how to scale onchain.
please do not throw out "LN is the solution" or "servers will be needed" or "you cant buy coffee"
1. instead of needing LN for coffee by channelling to starbucks. just onchain use a tx to btc buy a $40 starbucks giftcard once a fortnight.

after all from a non technical real life utility perception of average joe. if your LN locking funds with starbucks for a fortnight anyway. its the same 'feel' as just pre-buying a fortnights worth of coffee via a giftcard.
(it also solves the routing, multiple channel requirement for good connection, spendability, also the other problems LN has)

2. onchain scaling is not about just raising the blocksize. its also about reducing the sigops limit so that someone cant bloat/maliciously fill a block with just 5 transactions to use up the limits. EG blocksigops=80k and txsigops=16k meaning 5 tx's can fill a block should they wish. this is by far a bad thing to let continue to be allowed as a network rule.*

3. point 2 had been allowed to let exchanges batch transactions into single transactions of more in/outputs so that exchanges could get cheaper fee's. yet if an exchange is being allowed to bloat a block alone. then that exchange should be paying more for that privelige, not less.
(this stubbornly opens up the debate of should bitcoins blockchain be only used by reserve hoarders of multiple users in permissioned services(exchanges/ln factories).. or should the network be allowing individuals wanting permissionless transacting).. in my view permissioned services should be charged more than an individual

4. and as we move away from centralised exchanges that hoard coins we will have less need for xchanges to batch such huge transactions and so there will be less need of such bloated transactions

5. scaling onchain is not just about raising the blocksize. its about making it more expensive for users who transact more often than those who transact less frequently.
EG imagine a person spend funds to himself every block. and was doing it via 2000 separate transactions a block (spam attack)
he is punishing EVERYONE else. as others that only spends once a month are finding that the fee is higher, even though they have not done nothing wrong.
the blocks are still only collating the same 2000tx average. so from a technical prospective are not causing any more 'processing cost' to mining pool nodes tx's into block collation mechanism. (they still only collate ~2000tx so no cost difference)
so why is the whole network being punished. due to one persons spam.

the person spending every block should pay more for spending funds that have less confirms than others. in short the more confirms your UTXO has the cheaper the transactions get. that way spammers are punished more.
this can go a stage further that the child fee also increases not just on how young the parent is but also the grandparent

in short bring back a fee priority mechanism. but one that concentrates on age of utxo rather than value of utxo(which old one was)

2. then dont use centralised exchanges.
EG organise a meetup of local people. ask the people that turn up to raise the left hand if they are a buyer and a right hand if they are wanting to sell.. and let them work out whos who and trade at the meetup

3. bitcoin developers again are thousands of miles away. when you decide to get a group of people to meet up at a coffee shop or some rent-for the-day office conference space. has no tie to devs/us government. you will not find on the blockchain that transactions were done at the coffee shop.

4- stop talking about kanyewest kardashian drama. it has nothing to do with bitcoin. he is just dancing around to "im a little teapot"

4-as for permissionless bitcoin. thats something world wide.. i thought you were looking for iranian solution tobuy bread, choose the battles you wish to solve and build a community to then join the war on permissioned transactions, and single "REFERNCE client" source of code issues

5-bitcoin is code. the axiom of resistance is human. again you cant ask code to change a human. but you can ask a human to change code. its then for the human to change their life by using the code or not. the code is not AI. it has no arms or legs. humans do. so organise the human to solve the situations using the tools available or to ask humans to make the tools.
bitcoin is NOT self programming. again its not AI

easy way to view it. replace the word bitcoin. with the word dollar
dollar is just dollar. its the humans that make the rules for dollar. (senators(bitcoin devs)) its the humans that decide to use the dollar(btc) its humans who "should" tell the other humans what rules should be allowed for the dollar rather than just let just one side decide how it should be for everyone.

risk is banks putting their funds into other companies which then play against customers funds.
the banks DO do OTC. they only use exchanges for smaller amounts.

the volumes of exchanges cant handle real OTC trade values

same with bitcoin exchanges
check out the portfolio

http://dcg.co/portfolio

first thing first. mentioning the media tripe of trump, sanctions is meaningless
thats like saying 2008 western world banks didnt make profit

what you need to do is get to the crux of the issue. how does "sanctions" personally affect average joe.
EG western world. not making profit=a smack to sub prime and causing people to get forclosed/ lose homes, banks shut down, people cant just get cash out the ATM from a couple banks.

secondly
once you know how it affcts average joe you can then start finding the issues to then find solutions


bitcoin is code. it has no arms, no legs, no voice. no political preference.
the real question is how can people of iran help themselves by using bitcoin. isnt it the right time for iranians to show they are libertarians and use bitcoin

bitcoin has nothing to do with craig and craig has nothing to do with bitcoin..
think of craig and ver as kloe and kylie kardashians, not trump and hillary.. then you will understand the social drama of it
well.. craig is more like kanye west.. says he is a politician.. but.. yea nothing



again bitcoin is code not AI
people of iran need to do the leg work. ask their merchants to use bitcoin so iranians can buy brad from those merchants.
you will not see bitcoin get a passport and makea phone call.. its just code

Iranians that use bitcoin are the iranian "bitcoiners".



asking code to grow legs or pointing fingers at a yellow wigged orange that lives thousands of miles away from you. solves nothing.
try instead to sort out a local meetup in your town for iranians to discuss bitcoin. learn about it, use it..
then find out popular grocery stores iranian bitcoiners would use and organise convincing that local merchant to accept bitcoin solves the problem in your town

its called a T15
google it

P.S btc SV is an altcoin and SV doesnt even have 5exahash of older s9's

real reasons
1. mining cost went down due to new asics. which means more profit for those running next gen asics which means more btc to sell for less and still profit
2. the same ones running the new asics are selling the asics, which means they are getting paid lots of btc which they need to convert to fiat
3. VC deals from a november 2017 buyup are finally unlocked from a 12 month lock. so finally able to sell..

the answer is all 3 of the above

but dont worry once they shed their skin in the game of the profitable coin. they cant continue forever. and those obtaining the new discounted coins wont sell for less.

so just wait for the plateau

as for the OP's list of 5
3. has nothing to do with btc. that is just altcoin social drama. well timed social drama but thats the point. the social drama timed to happen in the known time of the list i made so they can try faking glory for something unrelated. to try to pretend they are influencers. exchange charts show no pattern that they are the cause.
EG people that heard about 9-11 ran towards the towers then started making selfies that they were involved. and started making up stories that they were survives and heroes. when reality is they just timed some social drama to fake involvement.


1245 regulations, banks and alts have had these issues non stop for years. which means its unrelated and cant explain why things happened at this precise time. there is no trigger event if 1245 happening in november for any of those things.

i took a little look at your project and see some issues.

a person can create 51~(1 first tier 49 second tier) fake social media profiles and add himself to get f1,000 and then from there, repeat using the other profiles and then move the funds into one address.

basically you end up with 1 person ending up with a circle of himself and accumulating f1000 per alter ego just by making
1 new profile and linking to the 50 older profiles created.

you will not need to inflate your currency. because the referral plan you have will hyper inflate new currency, all by itself.

also you say about inflating the spending..
then giving "interest" to the savers..

basic economics is that the"interest" (making new currency to give to savers) is inflation aswell. thus you are inflating the currency in 3 ways
1. coin creation via referrals
2. coin creation in spending
3. coin creation in savings

inflation is BAD. people dont want it where f1000 would buy a loaf of bread today. but tomorrow it requires 1020 to buy some bread

lastly. about inflations. you say that exchanges will store funds in 'spending'.. nope. its like 'hotwallets' exchanges only keep 1-5% of customers funds in 'spending' and then have 95-99% in cold wallets. which in your project would be a savings address

..
as for decentralisation.
well if all the referrals are the same person of a circle. thats not decentralisation.
sometimes you have to realise that code cannot solve social issues.
yea cryptography can reduce hackers ability to get your passwords. but a hammer to someones knuckles or knee joints
until the scream out the password cannot be protected by cryptography.

as for mining
you mention limiting the size of pools. again this is not good.
here is an example. (il drop the numbers down for easy demo)
if a pool can only have 5 identities. then one person will just make 10 pools
or 5 people (that are real who are in the same family). will have 1 people ID per pool each and run 50 pools using each of their alterego's per pool
thus all controlling all the mining in one family

as for the payout for 'mining' 35 years to double that circulation.. meaning 35 years to double each persons F1000 holdings.
an average persons 'savings' is about a weks grocerys to a couple months salary. they wont want to run a program for 35 years where the pay out calculates to double their currency in 35 years. and yet have the value of that currency dwindle down via the savings and referral inflations much sooner

(i stopped reading your project at this point as the flaws were outwaying good economic logic)

summary.
i dont think you really thought out the economics of your project right. everything seems upside down and offering the opposite to what cryptocurrencies are all about.

it seems you more than likely come from the MLM community.

i can see many solutions to many other issues i didnt mention and also solutions to ones have mentioned. but your project does not show sustainability in its current form

decentralisation is no central point of failure

however as the core bug last month proved where people needed to upgrade. and surprisingly had to upgrade from one source site. and also using code from one dev team that stayed quiet about the bug until they could patch it in secret and then go public once a patch was released. is not the case of decentralisation..

the network is distributed in as far as full nodes are concerned.
(and now comes the defenders who will mis-define and debate the definition of full nodes)

build a fork that only destroys your coins first and then hands them to whomever dev is greedy.
and then when your pennyless. then people might consider it

oh by the way. the devs are not working for free
didnt you know the main devs got VC funding to the tune of over $100million... i think their set for life. so no need to ruin bitcoin.
but please continue making a fork that will destroy your own coins.(just to see how ur code works)

ver and craig drama have nothing to do with bitcoin

this topic should be in the altcoin section or the speculation section
show me a chart where large volume is arbitraging from

[sv/btc] ^ just before a time of [btc/usd] v just before a time of [sv/usd] ^ and then repeat
if you cannot show an arbitrage from sv to btc/USD the craig is not doing jack crap

[abc/btc] ^ just before a time of [btc/usd] v just before a time of [abc/usd] ^ and then repeat
if you cannot show an arbitrage from abc to btc/USD the ver is not doing jack crap


i checked some and seen no arbitrage. so they are not tanking the exchanges
other factors are in play and the two drama queens are just beating their chests holloring they are the cause just for fake glory and to pretend they are influencers

go on show me a
[bch/btc[^]] then [btc/usd[v]] then [bch/usd[^]] then repeat
that is timed within the dips with measures that show amounts of volume enough to cover the dips


if you cant show a arbritrage pattern then dont even attempt to say they are the cause.

bitcoin does not ask for real name or home address.
however 'good' money is where you can track its provenance (track back to source) to see a good clean audit

many altcoins are not popular and are not used for real life stuff so do not require a audit trail back to which block the coin/partial coin originated from.

the idea of bitcoin WAS sole control. sole security.
EG do due diligence with who you trade with to ensure you do not get scammed.
EG dont hand funds to strangers.

but thats for 1 peer to communicate with another about personal data. should they wish to disclose.
its not meant for the blockchain to store (unlike credit cards)

the whole thing about making bitcoin full anonymous is not about hiding ID. its actually more about using the 'its not full anonymous' to sway the sheep into ruining the provenance check of coins/audit of coins.

real funny part is a certain dev that says make it private using provenance breaking code. under the pretense of reducing mixing service spam.. actually runs a mixer and loves spamming.
he proposed a code tweak that turns a ~230byte tx into a 1kb tx but needs a couple of them to be full anonymous. which ends up as more bloat than just mixing spam does. (revealing his motives are not about bloat reduction but ruining provenance)

ruining the provenance of bitcoins audit will hurt bitcoin more then those that wish to hide. by being lazy and not hiding themselves, and simply want a coin to be messed up and unauditable purely for their laziness

the story
f2pool throwing out 10's of thousands of asics..... fake news
the images are from last years flood.

and it seems f2pools hashrate is going UP not down
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/6m?mining_pool=F2Pool


oh and although s9's are not profitable bitmain said that T15's will be delivered to pools/users in december. after they cough cough quality assure test them cough (profitably mine them for a month)
so dont scream panic

as for financial stuff
VC's, institutions are all prepping to claim a financial year loss in december , which they love(tax deductions are yummy)
then 2019 is a fresh year

1. next gen asics delivered
2. bakkt
3. institutions set to be ready to perform ETF
4. this temporary drama of a dip ends

after the 36th minute when they talk about hashrate.. i laughed.

lets clear things up
if 2 chains are using 2 different RULES.... hashrate does not matter. the rules come first.
a pool can have 100zeta hash. but if the block doesnt fit the rules.. reject in under 2 seconds.

however
if there were 2 chains with blocks of the same rule .. then and only then is the decision based on the blockchains combined hashrate for the whole chain

now the funny part,
the "re-org"
 if craig does overtake. and the chain ABC follow is SV's(while it is using ABC compatible rules)..and then he changes the rules.
if the majority of the nodes are still ABC.. craigs new ruled blocks get rejected by ABC. and so ABC pools can just mine a block with majority rule ABC will like can slide in.

thus making SV stall out where SV nodes accept SV and ABC accept ABC and they fall apart again.as 2 separate chains
craig doesnt realise its about code of node as well

a ABC node wont accept a SV block if the SV block doesnt fit a ABC nodes rules
a SV node wont accept a ABC block if the ABC block doesnt fit a SV nodes rules

again its not just hashpower

for me a price drop is discount day.
great oppertunity to buy cheap coins before prices go up.

many people seeing the price hanging above $5800 were hoping for it to go down to buy more.. i would call this a great time to. as we are about to nter 2019 where finance firms start a new tax financial year clear of losses. so can easily push forward.
(many finance firms that made a january-march loss didnt want to suddenly profit before year end. so happy to end year at a loss to claim tax deductions) . then in 2019 . boom. asics will be deliverd to people. ETF will finally get some go aheads. and people will be buying coin again.

ASICS have been created and being tested by SOME pools....
... the public delivery date is late december

its also that the ASIC purchasing gave the sale organisers excess btc

....
now some simple math

having one T15 is like having 2 S9 hashrate. but the electric is different. its 1.6kwh(t15) not 1.3kwh(one s9)
which um if 2 s9=2.6kwh then your saving 1kwh for same hashpower.
theres also other factors like saving space, cabling cooling costs. which help by having less asics that do the same job.
its also worth mentioning boost also helps do the job better too

in short it works out for every 10 S9's you can swap it for about 4 T15's for the same effect

.....
current hashrate puts profitability for those limited pools with access to pre-delivery nextgen asics at above $3.6k+
for a small amount of mining. emphasis small amount(the whole network is not T15 mining)

VERY bottom line costs IF mining (T15 asics) is taking the hashrate in exa (eg 40) and multiply it by 89 to get cost of mining BOTTOMLINE(based on a 5cent electric.. (farms get it cheaper but farms also have labour and facilities leasing so it evens out to 5 cents))
but remember
there are still S9's running bought at the $450 per unit which is a 111 multiple of hashrate to calculate their bottomline costs.
there are still S9's running bought at the $850 per unit which is a 154 multiple of hashrate to calculate their bottomline costs.
and yea there a few S9's that didnt give up that didnt sell up. that bought asics even more expensive. but hey

so the value support lines range is $3600-$6100 at 40exa hashrate

personally i was hoping for hashrate to have moved over 65exa last month-this month.. but seems they didnt want to shoot themselves in the foot this time causing a hashrate spike and temporary price drama upwards
 
meaning the bottomline even with new T15's would still be above the $5800 12 month support from november 2017-november 2018 IF the hashrate was 65exa+