data i showed is the last 6 months so
1. your number 1 excuse does not apply/make sense because segwit is more than six months of being active
EG analogy someone shows birth/death records for the last 6 years. and then you come and mention an excuse of birth/deaths of 13 year ago.
... excuses may have been better if it explained the events of july/august(within chart date) not make an excuses about something before the chart date

2. yes that can explain the non segwit chart of the 49-52mill waves of utxo. but the segwit flatline should also be growing/moving changing. and doing so at a rate of X
obviously if more are using segwit, the segwit utxo should be increasing in the last 3 months


anyway il be devils advocate..
pro segwit campaign tips:
get segwit main dev sipa to pubish bech32 address on his website and bitcointalk profile
get segwit main dev/fan LueJR to pubish bech32 address on his bitcointalk profile
get segwit main pool fan BTCC to use bech32 address for coinreward (yea i understand that btcc is dying out after dcg purchase)

as i found it funny that they themselves are not using such addresses even when being so pro segwit

people will stop using bitcoin. they will find another altcoin thats cheaper tx fee and not needed to lock funds up
(myspace to facebook scenario)

if you think people will remain just using bitcoin. then bitcoin becomes the monopoly

in my view as others have also displayed. bitcoin should be the open choice to avoid the monopoly. thus if bitcoin becomes a "one world currency" where nothing else is available. then bitcoin failed itself

your previous post (before the quote above) told me not to discuss ln factories/core theories (BSCartel).
so i shall not give my answer in this topic.

1. a blockchain does not need to be a single strand of chain which everyone needs to validate and hoard
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
it can actually be multi stranded where different clusters/regions/ethnicities/departments/nations validate and hoard their own section
O-O-O-O-O-O-O
|   |  |  |  |  |   |
o  o  o  o  o o  o
|   |  |  |  |  |   |
O-O-O-O-O-O-O
(imagine a network where one strand is the US currency residents and another strand is the euro residents and the main middle strand is the IMF master chain of SDR)
(imagine a network where one strand is the identity ledger, another strand is the financial ledger and the main middle strand community ledger)
.. i could go on. but you get the idea (thousands of possibilities)

2. misconceptions: that code can change the world
code is just code. it has no arms, legs or voice. it needs people to use it. people to get other people to use it. people to lobby governments to change laws and stop using old out of date databases and use blockchains. people to get thir businesses to use it.
2 misconceptions: that blockchains can solve every database using service/business/government.
many private businesses and database owners dont need diverse validation/hoarding. they dont need public ownership. they dont need outsourced resources.
2. misconceptions: closed network distributed ledgers are blockchains
blockchains fundamentally are just blocks of data chained together by including a identifier of the previous block in the current block to link them togther. but the ethos of blockchain is for decentralised utility of no central point of failure.
networks that are limited to a certain permissioned group do not pass the ethos test of the purpose of a blockchain. and so for closed network versions. these are deemed and buzzworded as DLT(distributed ledger technology)
in short open decentralised ledgers are blockchain. closed distribution ledgers are DLT

3. most of todays blockchains are just copy and paste idea's with little tweaks. the future will see an endless amount of idea's that will function for an endless amount of possibilities

4. endless

as krishnapramod said
bitcoins old ethos was to be a insurance against the corporate monopoly of citizens only using the monopoly fiat

but yea if btc does become 90% custodial permissioned and 10% tx expense permissioned.
then yea bitcoin has failed the insurance against corporate monopoly

scenario of 90% of users funds in custodial accounts...
for those 90% yes its not a permissionless system they are using

for the other 10%, where its probably too expensive for a 3rd world country to transact with (tx fee's being more than a few hours wage) those able to access the non-custody 10% are not going to be average joe or just anyone, as the cost of fee's become a barrier in itself
EG football stadium, analogy
anyone can sit in the 10% empty seats but they need to pay for a ticket or get rejected out of the seats
anyone can transact using 10% funds but they need to pay the fe's or the min-dust/min fee rules will reject them

thus rejection rules are a permission.. thus the 10% has its own thing of requiring permission.. so yea it becomes a permissioned system

anyway, in a currency that has 90% custodial control well thats just like a fiat currency.
the answer is to look at if fiat failing

that again has many results.
Venezuela would say yes its failed. Zimbabwe would say yes its failed.
america would say shh the sheep are asleep it hasnt failed until its failed so dont mention its failed until the sheep wake up to the failure alarm sounding off

people think because a bank broadly authorises payments without objection, so feel that fiat is not permissioned because they dont see the back-end system.
even though its their money(cough) there are limitations of £$500 ATM max limits. KYC, sars reporting for £$1000+, extended sars reporting for £$10k, etc etc
but for most sheep they will say its not failed until something actually goes wrong

questions
1. what is the network based on
2. who secures the network

answer
1. code (it not paper or hugs or bottles of milk)
2. people with control of the code (users do not control the code)

question
1. why do users not control the code

answer
1a. "compatibility" "inflight SF" (devs buzzwords for consensus bypass)
1b. doomads answer 'devs dont have to do what the community ask, devs can do their own thing'

question
1. who does control the code

answer
1. developers that write the code

question
1. why does doomad pretend that core are not the monarch, tyrants, tories, even though its their code that has changed bitcoin for corporate benefit and moving away from open community consensus and features of cheap, diverse permissionless utility ONCHAIN
2. why does franky1 have issues with cores goals

answer
1a. doomad needs to research whats actually happening with the bitcoin network. EG price bitcoin tx's out of being cheap and also stalling onchain scaling to making users feel they need to use a nonblockchained permissioned network called LN
2a. LN is not bitcoin.. LN was not created to be bitcoin compatible. bitcoin was altered to be LN compatible
2b. LN is a separate non blockchained network for any coin thats LN compatible (litecoin and others). not a feature solely for btc
2c. onchain scaling can expand, but right now no alternative brands that have their own proposals. just sheep following core
2d. if other brands dared to make own proposals then core will do their bypass and rekt campaigns.. again(emphasis)


i do laugh at doomad. not because of malice. but because of the flip flopping he does
'devs dont decide users do' vs 'users cant tell devs what to do, devs can decide what ever they want'
'its opt-in' vs 'its compatible'
and many other comedy flip flop moments

i dont blame him, i just feel he needs to update his knowledge of whats really going on

you open a topic to talk about me.. but then delete a post with me supplying some info.. hypocrisy

peak total UTXO 52mill (03 jun)
peak segwit utxo 560k (11 july)

current total UTXO ~50million
current segwit UTXO under ~90k

chart of last 6 months (source data)
all segwit utxo - https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1&from=1524780395012&to=1540591595014&panelId=3
al combine utxo - https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set?panelId=6&from=1524780395012&to=1540591595014

screw it lets even do you lot a favour lets just use the exact date where segwit had highest level
july 11th......... hmm not even 2%

segwit had a 6x DROP in utility on july 12th-14th

even the stats show since then total utxo went from 49mill(under, but i rounded up in your favour) to 50mill
yep the network acumilatd an extra 1mill UTXO.. yet did that mean that out of the 1m new UTXO more than 40% of new UTXO were segwit...

hmm nope segwit remained(emphasis) below 100k segwit UTXO

come on let logic prevail
if something gains 1mill and that new million of data should be 400k new segwit.. just to be 40% right?
but segwit did not grow by 40% in the last 3 months

i should have said 0% growth of segwit..(as it stayed flatline of ~90k segwit in the last 3 months)
but i done you a favour by counting the STAGNANT 90k as a rounded up 100k(one favour to you)
and made it as 10% utility in the last 3 months(1mill growth of all utxo and flatline rounded up 100k segwit)

have a nice day

1. ownership AND transfer
meaning exchanging is allowed (but you might want to avoid using chinese exchanges that also accept fiat. as thats a different kettle of fish of regulation debate(stick to altcoin exchanges)

2. china basically DO NOT mine the majority of bitcoin
firstly. in 2012 10.5mill bitcoins were mined using CPU/GPU. total got to ~13mill coins(more than 50%) GPU mined..BEFORE ASICS
as for the pools tagged as "china" the majority are not actually in china.
take antpool. you will notice their coin rewards go to half a dozen known addresses. these addresses are different facilities in places like iceland, georgia, san fran, and mongolia. they are also not managed by one person but separate. again you can tell as there is one address thats bech32 (countering th notion that its all controlled by Wu and wu hates segwit) because that facility is run, located and managed by people unrelated to "china"..
take slushpool. thats managed in thailand. f2pool. thats world wide. btcc.. well thats just dropped off the planet lol

have a nice day

im not an authoritarian. your the one that wants core domination

and how can i be an authoritation if you see all i do is bitch and whine.
again wheres my whip, wheres my cane, wheres my stick..
come on wheres my authoritarian power?

trying to say im the authoritarian as your last ditch attempt to deflect that its core that are the authoritarian. just goes to show. you are only interested in throwing insults and not learn about bitcoin


again im just calling out issues as i see them. i know you prefer sheep to just kiss cores ass and to not get told about flaws.
but there are flaws

now actually speak to the devs, they will tell you the flaws. then you will realise that you trying to hide the flaws with all your insults and infuriations is just self defeating yourself. your going to blow a blood vessel at this rate.. and what for? social drama?

if a dev admits X happened (inflightSF, UASF, bilateral splits), then there is no point you running in to say it didnt happen thinking you are that devs saviour.

dont you get it yet, your defending devs, not defending bitcoin.. but at the same time you are not realising that devs dont need you defending them because they openly talk about the issues they cause. they literally tell people that they make trojan backdoors for "inflight SF" they tell people they are releasing mandatory code. they tell people bitcoin cant scale. they tell people that the future they envision is a separate network thats not even a blockchain.


all i do is say why those devs idea's are bad for bitcoin in comparison to what bitcoins ethos/satoshis vision was.
if you think im actually trying to destroy core.
wheres the nuke, where the bomb, wheres the whip, wheres the stick, stone, ammo, weapon, code...
oh wait.. there isnt one.

im just telling the people that just following and ass kissing core is not good for bitcoin..
im not the one with mandatory code and trojan backdoors. so im not the authority..
but guess who does use them tricks...

but please with respect do some research.
if you spent more time learning and less time infuriating yourself in social drama. you would be more informed and more calmer
have a nice day

circle and coinbase have been partners for a while.

as for the scope of how far this can expand all you need to do is look at the portfolio of the parent company (dcg.co/portfolio)

im guessing their stablecoin will be bech32 compliment for the parent companies long desire of LN so they can be atomically swapped on the separate non-blockchain network known as lightning
edit.. eww ERC-20 (nasty)
ok i cant see that going well

guess they just want a fiat arbitrage coin for centralised custodian exchanges

doomad.
your debate is pointless
1. i know you love core and defend them.. i get that
2. i know you dont care about bitcoin security/satoshi's vision.. i get that(you think core can and should do as they please)
3. i know your just social drama playing and trying to provoke argument to lead to insults. i get that
4. i know you are just trying to catch me out on some social drama. i get that

your strategy is not new. your buddies done the same thing for a few years. but in the end was meaningless in regards to bitcoin

but try to do some research. and remember this is bitcoin forum. so if you want social drama go to a kardashian fanclub site, go to a pub or go watch some eastenders.

and yes i know the next level of the game is for you to act like the victim. but just remember who keeps poking the bear.
remember its you that interjects into a topic and meanders it into a social drama debate where you throw out the insults
. you can keep playing that game, but to me its just a comedy show..

meanwhile ill keep talking about issues that concern bitcoin security, network changes that occur without consensus and also when i see centralisation changing satoshi's vision into something which is more designed for corporate interest.

one day though. i hope you do the research away from your chums spoonfeedings. and then you have that lightbulb moment to see the big picture

until then, all i can say. with respect. is go research

---

your main gripe seems to be the false assumption that i want to control the network
flaw in your assumption.
where is my whip, my stick, my bribing, my commits. my code that has any way of making them change.
again you say i want x/y/z but thats your assumption.

my comments on this forum are not to just kiss cores ass..
my comments on this forum are not to just blindly follow core
my comments on this forum are to point out issues that the network is not as open and diverse as satoshis vision wanted it
my comments on this forum are that the code core are trojaning (inflight sw+mandatory bypass) are not helping the BITCOIN community, not helping network security and not doing what the vast comunity want(only 40% want segwit)

this is so that some people may wake up and not just follow core and realise there is more to the network and there should be more to the network than just the core roadmap

i dont usually directly insult. but lets try just once. (its more comedy than insult)
i know your from the UK. but um. are you welsh?
i only ask because it seems you prefer sheep

because the mandatory consensus bypass was unavoidable.

viabtc, bitcoinABC are the DCG.co puppets
go research they needed to create a separate network to throw the opposers to segwit into.. no one denies that

via and ABC are a group paid for by the same guys that paid for USAF and certain core devs
again go research.

i told you and windfury about the 3 card trick.. but again you stuck head in sand, just to play the social drama games without understanding the underlayer of the games and what actually happened.
the plan was always follow core or F**K off to an altcoin
well done.

my gripe is just that.. well done.
but if you look at the data of which caused which. its still the same group.

and you have not proven that cash forked first.. (hint check the blockchain)

plus. heres the funny.. it just proves your pointless finger pointing at ver and jihan wu. as you just proved to yourself that cash was not created by ver and wu.
they are not devs, they are just PR guys (faceplates with a smile and the occassional middle finger)

if you done your research you would see that the 3 card trick leads back to the same group that want segwit and wanted opposers off the network

NOW GO RESEARCH
oh and you will learn that you are on the right track if your research bumps into the NYA agreement (a little hint for you)
oh and you will furthr learn how deep the social deception goes when you learn about the late 2015 consensus convention that introduced the roadmap.. learn who sponsored it...

a bitcoin constitution should be the basic ethics of what bitcoin should always stand for and be allowed to do.
this does not mean a rulebook that covers all eventualities of every possible little detail. but a broad ethos of basic understanding

laws LIMIT what people can do.
constitutions ALLOW a minimum standard of what people can do or expect without question or resistance

i just wonder. while people interrpret the bitcoin whitepaper.
what 'constitutional acts/rights' would they list if there was to be a constitution.
in short if we used this topic to write a list of 'rights'. could we all agree

EG if someone mentioned permissionless... how many would argue about multisigs
EG if someone mentioned borderless... how many would argue about fee's out pricing certain 3rd world countries from affordably using it
EG if someone mentioned borderless... how many would argue about cores roadmap of follow their roadmap or F**k off
EG if someone mentioned peer to peer.. how many would argue about escrows, and pools rejecting tx's due to low fee

oh doomad

your flip flopping
(now your saying the network had to upgrade to accept cores nw stuff for it to activate (faceplam))

i do laugh.
may i wish you well in your research of actual events. but it seems after so many posts and so many explanations you are just ignoring actually researching.

you have spent so many days insulting, but yet to show any sign of actually researching anything new since you startd your insult spams

CORE didnt need an OPT-IN to get activation.. they just done pidgeon english(your buzzword about compatible nodes) bypass and the mandatory threat car bumper sticker flag(again not needing a node upgrade) or get thrown off the road map
(people didnt need to upgrade their node. nor did it need 95% of the community to run a upgraded node)

(bip9 inflight sf) LEARN IT. i even posted it from the horses mouth and made it red just to make it easier for you just a few posts ago
usaf learn it (mandatory bypass/ controversial fork/ bilateral split(call it what you like, but learn it)
consensus learn it
as you even keep pretending that old node are compatible(full validation nodes) ..
literally is you admitting you know that the community didnt need to OPT-IN because even without upgrading they would still accept some form of data they wont reject.. even if that data cant be fully validated..
thus the community had no vote

the community did not need to upgrade to activate, nor could they reject what core done (without editing their node specifically)
core nodes would have banned nodes and rejected blocks that didnt follow cores plan

again LEARN about the mandatory bypass
the devs literally told you that they can slide in changes without the network consent

a constitution should not be a complete rulebook of all law. but an essential baseline of minimum standard expectation.

EG. not a right to freedom. as that automatically makes prisons illegal, thus making crime non-punishable.
but a right to breath, talk, walk. is an acceptable minimum..(you can still breathe, walk and talk in prison)

depends on HOW the 90% is utilised, presents different results

1. imagine people lock their funds into LN factory(fortknox) which accumulates to 90% locked into an address controlled by the small group of signatories.. leads to how banks done the 'gold standard' switch to paper money and now gold isnt even a payment method

2. imagine a small group bought up 90% of coins. first there wuold be a price spike. and people selling to the group would profit on the way up. then when the group sell. people can profit from the discount on the way down.. but all-in-all its just temporary drama

3. imagine the small group bought up all the coin. and just hoarded.. result. the rest of the community play with 2.1mill coins instead of 21m coiins. plus they play with them at a higher value... no other drama as its just about market play

4. imagine the small group obtain 90% of coins and then use those coins off-market to influence devs to write new rules, and influence merchants to adopt the new rules. thus thee remaining 10% users end up following the rules or find out they cant spend their 10% because the merchants are only accepting payment using the new rules

its because "bitcoin" developers are CORE developers. who have their github defaulted to english.
it would be nice if we had multiple teams with multiple FULL NODE implementations all with there own proposals process to improve bitcoin.. then you would see many countries writing their own software in their own native languages. but things have been centralised to one main team of whom need to be able to speak english to be able to communicate things to the moderators of core, just to be able to have a chance
(example SIPA, from the netherlands. but having to write bitcoin code in english and discuss his proposals in english)

my reply would be
separate teams have separate software that all have their own proposals platform (suggestion box)
then the community(not one team) then poke at the suggestions and improve on them until all teams can agree on one master proposal

then when it comes to a fair agreement/compromise on a fair acceptance. each team then release a version of their software..
lets call it a B version. which thee community can download that includes the master proposal

EG core have version 0.17a which would be the normal version of current active rules. and then a 0.17b that includes the master proposal the community has should high agreement of
where the other teams also have a version B of the same master proposal

then if all the brands version B's show high activation.. then cores next 0.18a(active rules) would the activated master proposal
if the master proposal doesnt get consensus. the its just not activated...  and cores 0.18a wont have the master in it. but atleast each team would get to offer the CHOICE without any brand control fights

that way its not a you need to download only cores latest version or get kicked off the network. but people can download other teams too.. and where the proposal is a separate thing.. thus its not a brand debate. but a consensus debate because the proposals are not forced by any single brand as they are offered by all brands (as version b) while also letting users not be forced into it by them also having the currently active consensus version(a) available to 'no vote'

that way its actually consensus opt-in while having freedom to choose a brand..rather than a follow one team or else

many people say the whitepaper needs changing and is out of date and should instead treat the core roadmap as the constitution
(facepalm)
yea they want to go against satoshis vision and instead treat core as the monarchy of the network.

but as for a constitution. many interpret it different ways
take the american right to bare arms

... here's your bare arms


(constitution does not mention fully automatic machine guns, rifles)