im not back peddling. i said on many topics for many years "everyone on level playing field"
but YOU took a one time statement about if core want to be a "reference" then thats a refernce of current rules that other teams can refer to and then other teams can separately build on INDEPENDANTLY

the funny part is. people used core as a reference and then core devs actually went out screaming that other people were using them as a reference... (i laughed at the hypocrisy)

their view of reference is not
open source anyone can use and build on.. but
closed club membership, moderation where everyone needs to follow  the club as reference and not build on outside the club


my point was that reference does not mean core get to be the only central point of new innovation. yea core can offer new innovation. we the network should progress away from core to expand the level playing field into decentralised teams so that there is other level playing field teams at play.. thats not restricting core. thats just not empowering them.. theres a difference
they can still make proposals and innovate. but bing the only source of innovation should change.
again not restricting core. just opening up innovation for others(without REKT campaigns and social hierarchy of defending core as a monarchy)

who said its stopping me. didnt you read. i and a few other are doing it. here ill remind you and embolden it

the thing your missing is that if independent people release publicly the code that does such, end up getting REKT abuse
again you are defending core by asking me to retract a statement against core. (im laughing at that)

try learning consensus. thats all im going to say

1. you dont need to code any 'restrict core' ban hammer stuff. you just need to re open decentralisation by having other node dev teams on the network that have their own proposal mechanisms
its not restricting them. its just de-powering cores monarchy and removing centralised leadership
ofcourse core wont then be able to stay ahead if they are not the only brand on th network so de-facto they become the reference of only current rules not future rules because they are no longer the sole source of new features

2. people can still refer to core if they believe only core can provide the cleanest code. but in the same respect they are no longer the only codebase on offer and its for the community to have free choice not sole option

3. as for natural consensus re-invention. thats easy. many argue that lots of choices equal lots of forks. which is untrue
imagine this.
5 brands have 5 idea's of a new blockweight
5mb 6mb 7mb 8mb 9mb

your thinking OMG 5 chains of different blockweight.. no
firstly nothing would activate unless consensus is reached so they can all preach their desires forever and never get activated.
however. as you can see.. the 9,8,7,6 are by default also agreeing to 5mb because you cant have 9 unless your node accepts 5
(you cant have 1mb base block unless your node accepts 0.75mb or 0.6 0r 0.5 baseblock)
and so if there is a high majority that is happily with 5 or more then 5mb becomes consensus. and everyone is happier its no longer 4mb because now the baseblock is 1.25mb aswell

and if core become anal and follow lukes desire of 2mb weight 0.5mb base. then people will start seeing luke is being anal and they will avoid using core vLAp (core version with luke anal proposal).

i know your going to cry out that forks will happen.. no. again if a pool chose to make a 8m weight block whil the network ffect is at 4mb/5mb.. the 8mb just gets rejected in under 2 seconds. this has already been seen when a pool made a block bigger than 1mb a couple years ago. it didnt cause a fork/altcoin. it just had its block rejected in under 2 seconds

you do realise that the 20+ pools right now are not all making the exact same block. they are all making 20+ different blocks. its not just a race to the finishline first. its also who fits the rules of consensus

users can have their nodes set to different acceptable values. but the whole network effect of consensus would sort out the mess, and do so in seconds.
my node can accept 32mb blocks. but i know i wont get a 32mb block because of network effect of consensus and the orphaning mechanism (and also my node has a 32mb hard code. and a variable that can be altered at runtime set to 4mb which i can up if something activates within the network)
 but my node is ready to handle changes when changes happen without me needing to recode my node from scratch again. same goes for everyone else they could code their node the same way. and become less reliant on a dev team to spoon feed changes because the user themselves can change settings.
hopefully we will see that dev teams make software with a "options" tab to allow changes at runtime without needing to download/resync for each and every change

again no one will get 32mb blocks or "gigabyte blocks by midnight". because of network effect. what would happen is if all nodes and pools found that 5mb was a mega majority acceptance. the 5mb gets activated when pools think its safe to risk their time/reward to create a block that the network effect will accept
and they wont just create a 5mb block. they will try a 4.001mb block to see if any bugs pop up (like the berkely leveldb bug)
which if 4.001 doesnt get rejected at network level. then they will try more. again like the climb from below 0.5mb to 1mb.
which history shown

you can learn alot about consensus, if you took time to understand real consensus and not just repeat the same lame "fork" stories that have been debunked years ago. the only forks that happened was not due to consensus. but by intentionally bypassing consensus

im just surprised no one has taken the dragon tales bitcoin game
http://www.dragons.tl/
of year ago and re-innovated it to be more like second life where you can buy real goods from within the game

1.mining pools are more spread out. take antpool which loads say is "china" fact is they have farms in georgia san fran, iceland.
as for other pools, some are actually in thailand, russia, and other places. seems geography is not OP's strong suit
(you can spot this as antpool uses a separate coin reward address for each facility. if you actually add up the asics and the facilities of their locations. you will see "china" doesnt have as much as you think

10. over 70% of coins moved in the last 2 years (might be worth the OP doing fact checking)

18. & 40  they counter each others points and only 40 is the closest answer.

if it was wanted by consensus. then there would have been no need for a mandatory date. it would have naturally received 95% without USAF with out the bait and switch of NYA and without the REKT campaign.

but nah core only got less than 40% meaning core should have realised their own idea was half baked and gone back to try new ingredients and offer a new cake that the community would want, that would get 95% approval. without any apartheid-esq game play required

as shown doomad has no understanding of consensus. all he can see is forks and altcoins as the only option of multiple nodes brands..

(mega big facepalm)

if he thinks the only route is for brands to throw each other off the network because their code is better.. then he has no clue
the "some risks" links are funny. saying a bit of 2 second orphan drama is worse than a whole network shut down, was the best comedy of he week to read. seems those comedians would prefer a whole network shutdown than a nodes log file just referencing a rejected block after 2 seconds.. (facepalm).. i guess they either dont understand consensus or are just trying to fake news what consensus is by saying it involves making altcoins/forks. either way, pure comedy.

anyway. there is no point trying to teach him because i have asked him nicely many many times to learn consensus and he has just cried out that im telling him what to do.. (as the excuse not to actually learn about real consensus mechanism)

so best to let him live in his world of altcoin making and other coin making code, and not live in a world of a community of a network that contribute, compromise, communicate, and cider everyone part of a community.

i think doomad will do well on other networks as he seems happy advocating for other networks
before doomad cries a new variant of social drama: there is no code to kick doomad off bitcoin. there is no demand dooman F**K off. i just said he would be happy should he choose to go play with other network like the other network called lightning

"break out"

these silly fools drawing random triangles on charts have no clue

today was not a break out day.
in the last month alone the price exceeded $6600 for atleast 9 days. so today is nothing special compared to the other days

it is funny because when you see the triangles they draw, anyone can tip the angle of their lines by a few degree's and it still touches the previous points (because these trend anals didnt draw a good line in the first place) and the end point would change

yes these lines are not based on real world events or data. its just a line someone drew on a chart. like pin the tail on the hand drawn donkey, where they chose where the ass point is and said thats where everyone should pin their targets on

thats not technical analysis, thats preachers asking traders to follow them and set their bots to follow them to make the preachers prophecy become self for-filling

A"today you will break your leg and you will ask me to help you"
B"no i wont, ouch why did u slam a hammer into my leg"
A"i told you you would break your leg, now there is no one around so ask for my help to get you to hospital or ill take ur other leg out"
B"ok help me"
A"to the community i predicted something and it came true"

seems every other day or week someone want to call out something because they drew something on a chart.
funny thing is the last week of september had better numbers than today

using bitcoin as an alternative to fiat is not saying that bitcoin is the nuke button to destroy fiat. but is the underground bunker should fiat ever nuke itself.

the quote windfury picked never mentioned that bitcoin would destroy fiat, but be an alternative safety zone

i understand windfury and his buddies are only interested in bitcoin so they can double their fiat and run back to fiat. but some people actually want something that counters fiat and offers an alternative.
there are many many topics where windfury has shown his desires for managed account services and locked funds and 3-5 days settlements with chargebacks being part of bitcoin..

but bitcoins utility should remain as something that offers something fiat cant

i know you only replied to poke the bear into another off topic social drama discussion about something not related to LN flaws

ill bite.. but remember you, like others are the ones that love to distract the narrative. so dont cry after

firstly. in consensus. things only should upgrade when the network has consensus. (no altcoin creation)
secondly the only reason you think things end in coin splits of altcoins is because you have only seen cores bypasses of consensus but fell for their PR.

the only reason why we didnt have it happen in 2015 as consensus is because core devs refused,
then pretended to agree then backtracked, then got a few of their devs and buddies to fake an alternative choice just to get those who were not blindly following cores roadmap off the network. and they got their investors to make a NYA plan to PR a possible chance of onchain scaling but only under terms of activating cores roadmap first, to the back peddle that NYA plan too...

by the way you can flip flop and spin all the social drama you like. but there are actual lines of code and block data, and stats that show the real series of events. so no point playing the social drama PR game to defend cores actions.

as for is there any code thats not core adoration/following.. well there would be if it wasnt for the REKT/mandatory campaigns over the last 3-5 years

anyway,
im finding it funny the same few names pop up trying their dang hardest to defend a WHO(core devs) instead of a what (bitcoin innovation). even as going as far as defending those devs OTHER NETWORK stuff.

doomad

your defending core. not bitcoin
if you cared for bitcoin as a decentralised network. you would not care or need to worry or need to defend core. because core would not need defending

its not about restricting code they want. its about the code they want IS restricting others

do you see any code i wrote restricting core? no? ooooo so im not dictating code
do you see any bips i wrote that include mandatory activation dates? no? oooo so im not dictating anything mandatory
do you see any code i wrote that throws core off the network or makes core none functional? no? ooo because im not doing that

but look WHO is and look WHO you are defending
core have bips with mandatory activation. those bips have been used
core have code that restricts other nodes from doing things previously possible by non core nodes.
core have code that has thrown nodes off the network purely because they were not wanting the core roadmap

you are not defending a WHAT(network) you are defending a WHO(group of devs)
atleast recognise the difference and realise that you are not defending bitcoin but you are defending core.

in the last 9 years it has only been core devs and their buddies that have lead REKT campaigns. only core devs and their buddies that have supported mandatory activations and only core devs and their buddies that have added code to throw certain nodes off the network

as for user choice. show me a proper full validation, full archival, full node that is in no way affiliated with following the core roadmap, that offers their own community BIP gatway where users can offer suggestions of possible future features..
that does not involve moderated hop skip and jump(3 moderated venues to pass) to even get a chance to vetted into a client software

over many many many discussions i have used the term 'we need to go back to a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD of multiple implementations'.
why are you so afraid of that notion? does it go against your buddys roadplan?

read my footnote.
plus if you think im a dictator. i would be actually trying to DDos core. or rleased some client with some mandatory code.
yet im just saying my opinion. there have been many topics where you defend cores monarchy. i get that, you have a buddy system. cool for you
that doesnt mean others cant have opinions and call out the crap that occurs

there has only been one group that have actually acted with dictatorial methods. and you can guess who that is

if i see something wrong. ill call it out. but calling it out is not a dictatorship. its just calling it out.
im sorry if i upset your buddies, but calm down. its not like im the one that pushes out mandatory code changes that only had 35% community uptake before and after

i do understand your frustrations. but insulting because its mentioned that a scam is an obvious scam, is not insulting you its pointing out that the site does very much look like a scam.

again it's not insulting your intelligence, but instead teaching you that maybe you should be more careful and saying you should report the scam

i hope bluehost can do something for you

P.S about your post below to save spamming
you quoting my post and asked for help. thats like you tapping me on the shoulder asking for help. and me saying sorry it looks like you were scammed so go to the police. .. again i understand your frustrations but recognise your own tone in your own responses to someone you tapped on the shoulder randomly.

i am not viabtc. but anyway

im guessing you deposited funds into them at 1HqsP...
looks like they pretty quickly moved it into an exchange

as for their details, im afraid to say this to you but there are so many red flags about how they registered and used crappy website build tools that you should have done all these checks before giving them funds.

privacy guards, using a service that gives a free domain that only that expires in a year
your best bet is to contact bluehost

11 month bottom of $5,800 is holding well
3 month bottom of $6100 is holding well
its been tested multiple times and held.
the majority of coin movements in the 11 months have gained a individual value above it,
mining costs are currently above it.

but its too soon to move the milestone above $5,800 as the retests and mining cost threshold and majority holding coins that they didnt hold 1day-11 months ago is fresh

its normally best to wait 3-4 retests of a bottom. where its an obvious retest and not just normal daily/weekly waves
but with that said.. the underlying baseline value is healthier then previous years. and there is nothing wrong with a bit of speculation ontop (current mid $6k prices), its just too early to call anything in the $6k range as a baseline. as not enough coins have shifted hands to give a majority value in the $6k range,

but still
2016 above $300
2017 above $900
2018 above $5800

the market did not add $5billion in hours

seriously. stop looking at the market cap. its a useless number of math, not funds
someone can make an altcoin of 5trill coins and add just ONE DOLLAR to an exchange and make the market $5trillion just by buying one coin with ONE DOLLAR

satoshi left because he didnt want to be a point of refernce/decision. he wanted consensus to decide.

but bitcoin core replaced it and has been the thing people point to as the CORE, reference, decision, roadmap, moderated proposal route for all things bitcoin network

having mandated upgrades and moderation and treating other client software as the enemy that needs to be rekt or distorted as enemy until the only option is to altcoin those other clients off the network.. then its not decentralised.
claiming there are other full nodes is flimsy at best as they just blindly follow core

we need to get back to a level playing field where multiple pieces of full node full validating full archival software all have equal level as core.

core, if it wants to be a reference client should only run current rules. and then let the community separately on their own have their own proposals. where they communicate to each other and if a feature is good and wanted then all the versions add it. and the feature gets activated when the community of various versions all have consensus.

core need to back off with the monarchy mindset. all the core devs should have their own releases and all contribute to what the community want. not a small pool of devs who demand users blindly follow one roadmap and treat anything else as a bad actor.

if some feature/software is bad, people just dont run it. simple. but to campaign that there should only be one and anything has to follow.. is not decentralised.

core should be P-1 not p+1 (p=proposal). you know where cor is just the blue print of basic design. and others then build ontop separately

in short
dont expect the successful first active ETF to go on a real bitcoin buying spree on day one, grabbing more coin. but expect other new/upcoming ETF's to suddenly realise they now have a proper opportunity to enter that market and so will want to establish their own reserves of real coins, to then apply for ETF status to then offer shares based on those reserves

to explain
those that have applied for a ETF already have built up their coin hoards to form the backing of their ETF and on the day the ETF is active many investors will buy up shares of the ETF. so that specific ETF wont be buying more instantly until they have sold off their allotments of shares

however. others who have not yet applied yet want to be ETF, wont waste money with applications if they are already seeing others get rejected/delayed. they will wait for the first success and then act. once the first successful ETF acceptance occurs, those sitting on thir hands will rapidly see how its done properly and will want to replicate a ETF that ticked all the same regulatory boxes as the successful applicant. so other future ETF's will be buying coin to get themselves rolling pretty quick

i predict this will occur after the tax year end. thus 2019 will be the year of the ETF's

bitcoin does have a minimal value.
its based on many factors. but fortified and strengthened by the cost of acquisition

do not be fooled that the price is value. there are actually 2 layers to it
the underlying value is the LOW of a long-tested out period where its clear that the majority refuse to sell below.
this is based on acquisition costs... the volatile price is the speculation above that which is variable

concentrating on the LOW/acquisition/bottom
its not just buying on the market but also mining. if it costs the average/majority of miners atleast X to mine bitcoin. they wont foolishly sell for less. and if they can buy it on a market for less than they can mine it. they will buy it. which helps build up the underlying value of X
over the last year based on mining costs. the amount of coins that have moved/traded and such, the majority of coins hold a underlying value of $5,800+
yea some people bought at $6k-$20k but the higher the number goes the less people actually got it at that price.
but as based on a good long 11 month period of multiple opportunities for everyone to sell for less than $5,800 no one has bit. mining costs are also above $5,800 which also as i said strengthen that bottomline value where people wont sell at a loss. so there is a bottom.

i emphasis the 'plus' of $5,800. but du to lack of test of time, retest of bottom, variable mining cost variable market acquisition cost and lack of majority of all the above. mentioning any underlying value specific number at this point is too early as the majority have yet to really test, prove that a higher milestone should exist (EG latest retest of $5,800 was not that long ago. and the maths of mining costs also shown that there have been some opportunity to mine coin at $5,800 recently too even many periods above $5,800. so its just too soon to call out a higher bottom value
 

its like gold. if it only cost a penny to mine gold everyone would mine it as they could sell it for any price and break even and profit. thus gold wouldnt be ~$1k/oz
the reason its $1k/oz is because gold needs excavators, diesel, labour which cost money. so miners wont sell for less
as for the gold markets. again if the majority of holders bought gold at a penny they would sell for any price. but they too over time been paying high hundreds and this last decade the $1k area. so thats why gold has a underlying value of such.

you could easily put a marker/tag against the utxo's that exit an exchange to show the days average price.
over time as things move around you can update them tags. and see more coins with more tags as your data grows over days, months

and then know how much is peoples bottomline / break even. to know what the communities attitude is to a certain price based on % of the communities bottomline, that way by marking each utxo to have a 'price' you know what it is not going to sell for as that would be stupid and a loss.

i done something similar but simpler based purely on the UTXO set that moved in the last 11 months (while prices were above $5,800 bottomlines) and seen over 65% of UTXO's got spent within 11 month. even though my data did not involve coins that entered /exited an exchange. but by purely changing hands people normally (psychologically) self value their coins at the value they change addresses

but having a better metric of marking the coins with a price they exit exchanges at. gives a more precise depth to what 'value' people put as their bottomline refuse to sell below price as they have preferred to exit an exchange instead of keep it in to sell it

water and oil are not the same. once you use oil its gone. when water goes through a turbine. water still exists. thus can be reused.
and if reservoir one has a capacity of 365 million litres. reservoir two doesnt need to be 365million litres.
infact it doesnt even need to be 1 million litres to catch a day of R1's daily run off to double a day.
all it needs is a small narrow run-through that water flows to create pressure (you know make the tip of a hosepipe smaller than its beginning so that the pressure rises.

as you say its more about price. and if you done some maths. china's production is multiple percent above demand. and that excess goes to waste unused, unpaid for. so power stations are loving that bitcoin farms are buying the excess.
the power stations make profit. and now make more. they could use it to create extra production. but demand is not there to push/sway them into using the many many many techniques to re-use water after its gone through a dam.
and yes there are many ways. that dont need to rely on depth/height/gravity

EG
lets say a steel turbine is heavy and needs Xpsi pressure to move it. to then spin a electro magnet of 100 coils.
your mindset thinks Y water is needed and Z height for gravity to produce Xpsi.

yet.. if you shrink the nosel of the water pipe. = less water needed to produce same pressure
yet.. if you use a lighter material for the turbine = less pressure needed = less watr needed
yet.. if you add more coils in the electro magnet = less water needed

EG make the turbine lighter and electromagnet bigger then water becomes less of the issue