blockchain does not need to store data (health records)

a block can just contain just a hash for a health record and not the patient data itself.
and separately the health record has all the patient data in a standard database. but requires a hash to be confirmed into a blockchain before the patient data in a separate database is classed as verified.


for instance. imagine side chains imagine there were 2000 bank branches with their own chains/databases for their own local customers of the town that bank branch represents
but then there is a master blockchain/DLT that just holds the hashes(block header ID) of the 2000 bank branches most up to date instance


the other thing is the over use of "blockchain"
blockchain should be used for open public use (eg internet)
distributed ledger tech(DLT) should be used for closed privat use (eg intranet)

these days i have seen many business try to say their private security models will be blockchain. and then also say the public networks are DLT

facebook have not changed quickly. the banning of adverts were about preventing their customers from seeing scam coins begging for investors using deceipt. they do not want to be seen as endorcing a scam.. facebook was avoiding lawsuits by preventing its users from being scammed by ICO's
however facebook does not ban discussion/groups talking about crypto.
its not banning crypto its banning scammy ICO's.

facebook is NOT making a crypto currency

facebooks "facebook credit" is not a currency that can be redeemed for cash. its a one way purchase and consume token. meaning that users cannot buy facebook credits to then pass to a friend and the friend cash out.
facebook do not want to get into the industry of competing against western union. and other money transmitter businesses. because the licencing costs of such would raid their advertising profits.

instead facebook want to utilise the blockchain (data security) concepts.
yes they want to utility th data security of their facebook credit. but its not going to be a fiat enter&exit coin for its users. its going to be the same as its facebook credit, but secured on their servrs usin blockchain tech as oppose to standard database security. thus saving them costs on security/auditing and preventing internal malicious actors

there wont be an ICO, wont be an airdrop. wont be a market. it will be done as a retail product. you buy it and use it.

in short. facebook is not treated as a money transmitter business becuse it does not let FBcredit holders sell their coin publicly. facebook have their FBcredit as a retail product. all that will change is facebooks background/security of their data/credit. nothing will change on the users front end/public side

flaws
also the coins circulating are not all on the market. check out an exchanges depth chart there are only a few hundred coins played on the market, not millions
most people are hoarding

ebay/paypal made no agreement to use bitcoin in 2009.. there was som rumours and discussions a couple years ago but nothing as far back as 2009

to be on TV then the advert must adhere to some guidelines, and also have some legitimacy (no hiding bhind proxies/ fake addresses) the tv company would have been in contact with the business to set up a deal for airtime

so reporting it to the better business bureau that "meant" to deal with consumer protection would be a first goal. and then once the ball starts rolling lawsuits can begin and having the better busines bureau involved helps the case move along.

if you are a lawyer it might be worth checking out the tv channels best practices policy about what type of adverts it allows because you might also have a case against the tv channel itself. and thus get them on your side if you do a deal not to file against the tv company if they aid the case against the scammer.
but usually if its just about the scam itself it would involve having a "victim" who has actually received financial loss. so until you can find customers of that scammy investment, you should start by concentrating on if the scam has followed the policies of full disclosure of risk and advertising policies that are meant to protect viewers from even seeing such a advert in the first place.

for instance, in the UK a financial firm advertising invstments and savings HAS TO publicise its company registration numbers, of its registration to the government database for just being a company and its financial numbers of being a financial business which would also includ its insurance policy numbers

if a scammer does not have thes registrations. then they would get slapped by a court ordered wet fish. as for america. i believe its state by state stuff involved so if its a national tv station. then the scammy business would have to show its complient in the multiple states the national channel broadcasts across.

but i aint no expert so its worth checking the policies ofthe state, the tv channel and also enquire into the better business bureau

im dumbing this down and using average joe wording. so all you techno buzzword lovers. chill

lets imagine there are 4 computers. 2 of which are just users and 2 are block creators(mining pools)

when a user makes a transaction it sends the transaction to all (3 other) computers. those 3 other computers validate the transactions and hold them.
for instance if user 1 sent a tx to user 2 and user 2 found the tx funky. user 2 wont send the funky tx to the other 2 computers. this helps reduce wasting bandwidth by only letting valid transactions relay around.

the block creating(mining pools) computers validates the transactions for themselves too, just incase any invalid transactions slipped through the relay network. and then the mining pool makes a list.. basically a batch of transactions it wants to group together into a block of data that does not exceed the rules of maximum size block of data a block can have.
the block of data gets the valid hash of the previous block added to it. to chain the blocks together

that newly created block of data is then hashed to form its own hash identity.. lets call it for average joe sake a batch id. (block hash)

now these mining pool computers because things have moved on since 2009. they create the block. but do not mine the block hash(batch id) itself. instead it sends the hash(batch id) to a special device called an ASIC. and its this devide that does the mining of the hash.
an asic has been specially designed to do only one task and do that task very well.. mine the block hash

the end goal of mining is to get another hash that has done some work, in basic terms it has hashed the blockhash(batch id) along with a numeric number that increments until the secondary hash can be found that has a certain amount of zeros at the start that meet a difficulty target
this secondary has with zeros at the start is the proof of work

once this is found the blockdata along with the blockhash and the proof of work. is then put together and that block is relayed back out to the other miner pc and the 2 users.

this block is then validated to ensure the data is validated (it can skip re-validating the tx's inside a block if that pc already validated the tx). it validates the hash(batch id) corresponds to the batch of transactions. and it validates the secondary hash(proof of work) corrsponds to the hash and the difficulty rules.

if it all validates then this block is added onto the pile of other blocks. as long as no other mining pool has made a competing block with the same previous block hash in its data, and wasnt found/validated first.

then it all begins again of building another batch of tx's blah blah blah

the difference between binary vs quantum. is not about folding space or entring extra multiverses.. its simply to go from 2dimenion(options) to 4dimension(options)

so when you heard them talking about extra dimensions. they were not talking about a multi verse. they were talking about
binary 0 . 1
quandum 0 . 1. 2, 3

imagine it this way
before 0 meant 0volts and 1 meant 1 volt. and by using the patern of voltage /lack of voltage peopl could create messages.. (like morse code) which is where binary first developed from.

with quantum its
0 volts, 0.33volts  0.66volts 1 volt which is is less like pulses of electric/noise/data.. but more like waves/sound pitches/data

so instead of just having 0 meaning stand still and 1 being move forward. now using quantum you can have 0.33 as left and 0.66 as right.. or even 0.33 move back and 0.66 as move forward and stand still.

it opens up new possibilities of options within a same transister holding the same maximum voltage as before. but now with a 'dimmer' switch to have different levels that can mean different things.

...
with that said . when trying to solve a binary problem you cannot just use a quantum qbyte to give out a qbyte solution.. because a binary system would not understand that.
and as such a quantum system is limited to its multi option approach to brute forcing because the end goal has to be binary acceptable

so for a binary logic problem it works out that quantum is only 2x faster at solving (sha256 hash)
as for vector problems(ecdsa), well they can be solved faster.
but knowing the maths of how many possible combinations there are. and how many millenia it would take.. even with a quantum computer, its still going to be beyond your great great great grand childs life before an address is bruteforced.

firstly bitcoin cash was created by jgarzic and gavin A.. (they made bitcoinABC node)

ver is just a mouth piece and not a dev. much like theymos is not a dev of bitcoin core but is a mouthpiece
both theymos and ver have their own domains bitcoin.org and bitcoin.com

in august 2017 consensus did NOT upgrade the network. instead a bilateral split event occured that cause 2 rivals to split in different directions.

however. the bitcoin brand is and should remain owned by no one. this does not mean campaign for cash to get it. or campaign for core to get it. neither side should

the best analogy is the dollar analogy.
dollar is owned by no country. but many countries that can show historic links to the british empire can use the dollar. when when someone asks about wanting the dollar its best to simply ask is that amreican dollar(USD) or is that canadian dollar(CAD)
trying to fight that only america own the dollar and cadada is a fraud or arguing canada own the dollar and america are the fraud. are just playing drama games of something that should not be owned by one centralist party. and should not end up as lawsuits to determin a central controller

bitcoin is owned by no team. but many teams that can show historic chain history to satoshis genesis block, can use "bitcoin". when when someone asks about wanting bitcoin its best to simply ask is that bitcoin core(btc) or is that bitcoin cash(bch)
trying to fight that only core own bitcoin and  cash is a fraud or arguing cash own bitcoin and core are the fraud. are jsut playing drama games of something that should not be owned by one centralist party. and should not end up as lawsuits to determin a central controller

as for pointing this whole drama at ver. the very same argumnts can be pointed at theymos.
after all if your true belief is decentralised bitcoin you would understand this.
but if you ar a staunch supporter of core being the king monarchy of bitcoin. then decentralisation concepts are lost to you so there need not be a reply from core defenders

i personally am not a team player of either side. because both sides are actually the same side. both playing this point the finger attempt to hop that they can convince the community that decentralisation doesnt work and the only option is centralisation to avoid future drama(f their own causing)

both bitcoin core paid devs and the paid devs that made bitcoin cash are financed through the same company.

jgarzig, gavin A (BLOQ) financed by DCG
P.wuiile, gmaxwell, luke jr (blockstram/core) financed by DCG

its all a get 2 brothers to fight until people beg the parents to choose their favourite child.

do not let yourself get dragged into the drama of having to choose one or the other.. man up and say hell no.. no one gets to own bitcoin
you might read some core fans want core to centralise the branding and hand it all over to theymos at bitcoin.org. but thats just the centralising plan DCG want. fake choice of freedom/fake division purely to grab a brand name

but when the main paid core devs actually admit to bilateral splits of both sides going in different directions to avoid consensus.. instead of unilateral forks where only one side diverts. it becomes clear that neither side deserves sole control, especially if both sides are secretly part of the same financial portfolio.

out of box thinking

2010 mindset:- theres only 18million coins left, at current prices ($0.01) thats only $180,000 of value left
2018 mindset:- theres only 400 trillion satoshis left, at current prices thats only $34,000,000,000 of value left

the funds you hold in YOUR private keys is yours.

the thing with xapo. is about the funds that were in xapo's private keys at the time. they allowed the customer who deposited coins before a fork to also get the other coins automatically.

xapo is now saying that they cant just keep hold of their private keys forever and will eventually need to sweep the addresses. so time is running out on xapo customers getting free coins.

remmber if its not on a private key you own. its not your funds. and you have to rely on the kindness and ethics of a business to serve you and hope they offer you bonsues if a event occurs which outsiders would get.

i personally have a hoard i have not touched since 2013 (yea and a second and third wallet of smaller amounts i do play with more regularly). but my hoard is in my control meaning i still have full control and access to all the forks should i care/want to use them.

if your using online wallets long term. dont expect that same guarantee

the thing is. you keep thinking im defending ver..
page after page all i have said is BOTH sides of the same family of centralists are doing kardashian drama.

but you keep on thinking that if someone is not a kim fan they must be a kylie fan..
i am a fan of neither khloe(P.wuille (core)) or kim(jgazic (cash))
and
certainly not a fan of kanye west(ver).. nor kylie jenner(theymos) - both ego drama queens with no talent
and
im not a fan of robert kardashian(barry silbert)

its all one big drama event you pull two sides of the same rope.
but all you can see is there is only a single rope to pull and only one side should win.
you dont see that its a rigged game and both players are both sponsored by the same team
trying to get everyone in on the game so that either way robert kardashian(barry silbert) get the brand name

i personally see it as a no one should trademark "kardashian" so that even little lady down the road can be a kardashian or a teenager at school can be a kardashian. without lawsuits and licences being required.

it seems like you dont want to take the core defence hat off to wear a decentralisaed no on owns brand bitcoin hat.



i guess you missed the links to the funding
i guess you skipped over the links to the bilateral split data. even when it was links provided by your kings
i guess you missed the code provided by your own kings

you expect people to pay a minimum of $500 for a card game(0.5bop)
and expect players to pay on average $40k-$60k

you make me laugh
i think you should spend less nights on this and instead sleep a little more. maybe you would think straight.
if you wanted a viable gaming model. its $5 amounts not $500

lack of sleep or greed. im not sure what the OP has, but it is funny

asking for so much, is not a sign of wanting to run a legit business or release a game worth playing. but instead get just a couple suckers to hand you funds enough to cover a month of living. and then leg it while concocting a new scam under a new name ready for next month

the real question is to first define mainstream

some define mainstream as able to buy toilet roll and a pack of bacon from any 7-11, by spending crypto (retail mainstream)
some define mainstream as being traded on the NYSE (professional investment mainstream)
some define mainstream as being being able to bye crypto from many places to hold (amateur investment mainstram)

i would say lack of regulations are preventing professional investment. but when you get into the details. its BUSINESSES handling fiat that get regulated and they can apply any time they like and then handle crypto as part of that business.

but for everything else regulations for crypto are not needed, nor should they be promoted to be required. this is because getting businesses to snoop on the businesses own customers(regulations) is just adding admin onto the business, costs and also not helping the customer. just to get a "certification" that doesnt mean anything. apart from getting to say "we are professionals"

what would be something worth promoting is consumer protection. where authorities are not just handing out certificates(licences) but actually policing the businesses to ensure they do no harm to the customers. that way businesses act morally and ethically and customers will then be more willing to use them

regulations push average joe away due to headaches of applications forms and submitting life stories... consumer protection welcome more people due to being more relaxed that te business cant just run off. or is already hiding on a secret island

i find it real strange how so many people think letting a business that handles our funds should have the right to hide its identity. but require every customer who gives a business money has to identify themselves.. that is a silly reverse reason for anonimty.
businesses should identify themselves and allow the customers to not have to be scammed, stolen from and identified

most postrs on this topic have no clue. they just too stuck in the reddit propaganda...

marchants use merchant tools like bitpay/coinbase. so its not the merchant that tells the customer what to use. its the shopping cart service. in many cases the merchant doesnt care and doesnt see what currency a customer is spending. all a merchant see's is "paid in full"

places like bitpay and coinbase decide what are the choice of coins to include. and in most cases its based on the most lively coins they add on their platforms and ones with highest value of the markets

im not even sure why some people try turning this into the kardashian drama aboutbitmain, yet those bringing up the kardashian drama dont even check out the simple things like merchant tool services.

vanity gen is for when you want to create an address such as 1elect.....

tags is a option on blockchain.info to tag an address. for when some one looks at the adress on blockchain.info
https://blockchain.info/tags

though i see LN still has flaws and is not the unlimited superfast thing they promised that solves scalability and can handle every user type. lets not concentrate on trying to promote LN as the candidate for the future of bitcoin on this topic

anyway as for this topic
for general purposes of economic strategy for businesses to make money from its customers i would say do BOTH

netflix for instance knows that a user uses its service for an average of 1 movie or 2 tv show a day
so if $10 breaks down as ~35 cents a day

possible netflix promotional material: "15 cents a tv show 30 cents a movie.. or for $10/month, unlimited use"
 
starbucks averages 1 coffee a day per regular customer
possible promotional material: "$x a coffee  or for $xx/month, unlimited refills"

newspaper article
"2 cents and article or $xx unlimited reading"

briefly??
core were stuck at the 35% from december 2016 until august 1st 2017.. (over 8 months)
it only BRIEFLY jumped to 100% once the bilateral split occured UASF and split events were occuring on august 1st+. then for 2 weeks wait period to lock in. and then a further week or so to activate.. thus was only 95%+ for 3 weeks.. and only at that level due to the split
. not due to community desire or economic majority, due to full mining pools support.. but purely due to selective vote counting of only supporters to get 100% and banning the opposition from voting
so please if your going to make a reply. atleast back it up with some damn facts (review the code)(look at charts)
oh and before you ven scream propaganda.. here is a chart from your king(sipa)p.wuiile himself.
notice the orange blur of 20-40% between 01/01/17 and 01/08/17 (8 months). then on august first mega jump to 100% (the blue purple and orange all merge and jump)

come on.. think about it 100% vote happening all of a sudden on august 1st.. thats impossible election result unless they are throwing the count
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-small-ever.png



secondly... your missing the whole point..
NO ONE
NO ONE
not core not cash not one has economic claim to brand bitcoin

are you that ignorant of the meaning of decentralisation.

like the dollar if anyone says they want dollar... it must be asked
is that U.S dollar(USD) or A.U dollar(AUD).. like what happens in the fiat world to avoid confusion

if anyone says they want bitcoin... it must be asked
is that bitcoin core(BTC) or bitcoin cash(BCH).. like what should happen in the crypto world to avoid confusion

you continue to think everyone that detests cores centralism must love ver...

core and ver are the same family!!!
stop playing into the kardashian drama that there should only exist kardashian fanclubs of only 2 teams all related to each other
you are too obsessed with a 2 member of the same family drama you dont notice or care about the billions of people that want nothing to do with any member of the family.
and yes kenye west(gavin) is also an oldie now but still part of the kardashian family

ok
final chance
imagine someone wipes snot onto a lump of cheese... then cuts the cheese in half... and sends his 2 kids out to hand them to you.. and says
slice A is healthy. it builds your immunity by a special system called herd immunity(you ingest the germs and become immune to it in the future)
slice B is nasty snot
only one can be branded as bitcheese, you choose

either way. your still eating snot and you have been fooled into eating it. and either way the person handing you both slices gets the brand name bitcheese
stop eating the snot handed to you by the same person. demand that there should be more on the menu from diffrnt people. stop settling for only snot cheese

anyway im still laughing that carlton banks had no clueso spewed out some bip buzzwords in the segwit compatibility topic about flip flopping from 91 to 141 but he aint sure if any used 91 (meaning he has no clue.. but as long as he mentions a few bip number it atleast sounds like he is technical)

then he and others mention if certain parties hated core why did they jump to mine cash then jump back to core... the reason being is that pools realised that it was all kardashian drama and not a real second option away from the family. thus they just gave up

again BCH and BTC are one big family. but neither deserve the name as they both diverted off track.
as for carlton pulling out a statement about addresses beginning 1 cannot be used. no he is just making up stories that people say things they didnt even say.

anyway. segwit tx's are not validatable to legacy nodes.
and a legacy node would not be accepted to broadcast a segwit tx thus segwit is not interoperable with legacy.
thats why legacy nodes are deemed as downstream nodes (separate from the peer to peer network) and segwit blocks need to be filtered.

gmaxwell, lukejr and even p.wuille talk about and admit to it (actual devs)... not the achowe carlton fanboys that just kiss ass
achowe, carlton banks and othrs like lauda. are not real devs. they are just fanclub crowd control handing out glossy leaflets

as for carlton denying there is any proof of an agenda to cause a bilateral split.. gmax literally pleaded for one.

but as always.. all i can see that you will reply with
"wrong bercause you love ver"
which in itself is wrong and has not content to counter the actual details.
you are turning into carlton because its the game he played in 2017
and the game achowe played in 2016

so maybe if you are unsure about the details. its maybe worth not stating things you dont know. and find a topic you do know about and have researched. (proper research, EG reading code. speaking to the actual devs. reading things from the actual devs.. not their crowd control)

poor windfury. core defense cap wearer of 2018
ive shown code. ive shown links to websites showing where the funding of both sides comes from.
and yet.. windfury you only reply with "think what you want"
wow.. so much evidence you provided to counter..


so anyway
funding.. im sure you didnt click the link so here is a image for you to gloss over and pretend doesnt exist


bitcoin core - bitcoin core
bips - luke JR moderated - blockstream paid("founder and consultant") - funds from DCG
mailing list - rusty russel moderated - blockstream paid("founder and consultant") - funds from DCG
fibre - matt corralo - blockstream paid("founder and consultant") - funds from DCG
segwit - p wuille - blockstream paid - funds from DCG

bitcoin cash - bitcoinABC
jgarzic - bloq paid - funds from DCG
gavin A - bloq paid - funds from DCG
ver - blockchain.info paid - funds from DCG

as for the hyperledger
well lets take coindesk (media site owned by dCG.co)
https://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/
yes. read the disclaimer too
"CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group"

anyway lets allow you to have a few hints about fibres workings.. as a way of ensuring no opposing blocks get around the network

quotes from fibre


ill give you a hint. core complient pools create and validate core blockdata banning opposing blocks. send valid blocks to fibre that distribute it out super fast to other core nodes.


plus i do laugh when u went and asked if segwit was backward compatible and they told you
"Segwit transactions are not validated by legacy nodes because legacy nodes CANNOT correctly validate them."
they also told you a segwit node translates the data to make it a anyonecanspend

ive been mentioning about the anyone can spend incompatibility since early 2016 even before segwit got a maiinnet candidate release. so 2 years on and it still makes me laugh

again. if you cant copy the blockchain (copy and paste file folders) like for like. and it requires translation.. and that translation does not result in a tx that is validatable if the network needed to downgrade.. then its not compatible with downgraded clients.

lets put it simple.
a french person writes a book. in french. your old and unbale to learn french. french people tell you its ok the book is english compatible. ... just make a special request and we will make a bespoke copy of the book in english that is 4 times short and doesnt have any of the juicy details in it.
you accept the bespoke book. now. you try to hand that book onto someone else that is french. they reject it because it doesnt have the juicy details..
or
its like compressing and converting data from an sd card to floppy disk. and the the old pc user seeing it holds data but cant validate it so just assumes the person he got it from validated it.. thus no self validation..
and then finds he cant just hand the floppy disk on to someone with a sd card reader because they dont accept floppy disks and will reject it

segwit it not backward compatible... its not allowing an old(legacy) node to be part of the relay of full data. (i shown you before the image of the "doenstream filters" where by the old legacy client is not a part of the upstream p2p network(bitcoin core network). you cannot simply pass on the bespoke data to a segwit client, as the segwit client wont see it as a anyone can spend(invisable) they would see it as a segwit tx with no witness.
and if your not able to validate transactions then you are not part of the p2p validation network.


P.S
you are so deep into loving core that you really believe anyone not loving core must love ver.. (you are really stuck in the kylie vs khloe drama mindset of only 2 choices) you cannot see true decentralisation of no team ownership because all you keep thinking is if they dont love A they must love B... SHAME ON YOU

core had 35% opposition had 65%
yet the 35% still think that core is the prime network

it was a bilateral split that insured the 65% became invisible so that although there were less pools and nodes to count.. the pools making blocks that core seen as visibile instantly became 100%

try reading bip9 bip 148 do some research on bilateral split. and you will see that real true fair consensus was not used. but vote rigging was

you have not really checked out how things have changed since 2013 have you.

did yu know that due to FIBRE the only blocks being pushed out of the ring of mining pools is blocks that strictly follow cores rules. all other blocks get rejected in under 2 seconds. if a pool attempted to make blocks that differ. and keep doing it. they get banned from the network until they comply, thus Fibre forces the pools to follow the rules of core or nver get a block to be part of the chain and thus they are mining without ever getting a reward that matures to be spendable on the chain.

other developers who make nodes. if they did nake their own github and their own bip list and promote a upgrade that differs from cores roadmap. first needs to follow cores rules to just be allowed and seen by the networ and can only flag their desire. but has to flag using a bip9 process that core have to acknowledge. then it has to get enough nodes and enough pools to also run that same codebase to out power core..

well guess what. bitcoin ABC(cash) got 65% core got 35% and core simply done a bilateral split on the whole process.. and people still think core is "the network". so by core removing the 65% opposition. it automatically got cores BIP9 to see the remaining nodes co-operating and being seen by other core nodes equalled over 95% although there was in reality far more nodes/opposing pools that were simply invisible to bip9

core having 35% (letss say 7 pools out of 20(cant be arsed to count the pools with less than 1% block mining network hash power))
now imagine samson mow (UASF/blockstream) and bloq deciding to make a second choice to drama the sheep into another field.  and made it so pools that didnt flag for segwit moved over too



thus on that day if pools were not scared and continued to refuse to join the 7 core loyalist pools they would get their blocks rejected.

so when the rejects occured and fibre simply ban hammered the pools off the core network of those not UASFing.. all that was left mining the core network were segwit supporting pools. and on that day far less than 20 pools were mining (for example 7 pools out of 7 pools=100%)
..all the core support nodes got to see was blocks made by segwit supporting pools. thus although the pool count dropped, the percentage support jumped to 100% hense why segwit got locked in and activated only a few weeks after august..
it is real funny people think after months of 35% community consensus. it jumped to 100% in a couple weeks. and people still think that it meant evryone loved it.. no the majoirty were just made invisible so that only one fanclub could be seen

yes core done a rigged election
the users had no consensus election. all the users seen was 35%-100% jump.  
its really worth you actually reading some code and looking at some stats. ahd how things like bips, and fibre work. it will completely shock you how things have changed since 2013