when bscartel and their fanboys use the word conservative, you can tell they read reddit but never read a dictionary.

core are NOT conservative

"averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values."

segwit: NEW key pairs, new network topology, new block template
nothing traditional about that.

as for segwit being 'innovative' pfft.
their fixes/promises are empty and cannot be fully forfilled

there are many ways to solve the problems but core decided to go with the political definition not the literal definition
"just pay more"

LN will become paypal2.0
go check out the idea of hubs.. then check out the meaning of multisig and then check out CLTV (3-5business day maturing after confirm) CSV revoke (chargeback)

lauda please research the finer details. stop relying on reddit scripts

sounds like some people are stuck in 1999 trying to scream at twitch/skype that their business model of live streaming just wont work

anyway onto other points


the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing
EG
no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO.
this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases.

thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour

again the mindset is not about hinder bitcoin growth for the 99% purely for the 1% with limitations,
if it was the case, then core should not have removed fee controls that have wiped out utility for about 33% of the world*

(analogy time of dumb mindsets)
whats next. scream that employment wont work because most jobs are more than a mile from people houses and not everyone has decent transport
whats next. scream that retail shops wont work because most shops are more than a mile from people houses and not everyone has decent transport

*i do love the snobbery
"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

solution for users independantly
(same solution for torrent seeds)
reduce number of leachers(connections) = less bandwidth draw*

solution for dev implementations
reduce sigops and max txbytes = less ram/cpu demand

afterall with todays 4ktxsigops with 20k max block sigops
and segwits 16k txsigops 80k blocksigops.. that means a base block can be filled with just 5 tx's

and the max tx bytes of 100kb = 10 tx fills base block..

WHO THE F*CK deserves to have 10%-20% of the blocksize for just 1 tx..!!!!
reduce the greedy stupid, artificially high numbers, meaning transactions become leaner. and you will find that bloat, bottlenecking and processing time REDUCE all while allowing the block size to increase.

*i see many people with 'capped' internet that have 50+ connections. i facepalm them and tell them to learn "6 degree's of separation" and reduce their connection count.
not everyone needs to be a 'supernode' (multiple dozens of connections)

there can be side services to handle the niche market of 'instant spend' .. but that is no reason to try doomsday the blockchain using propaganda to stifle natural growth.

segwit cannot solve the promises it promises. and you cant segwit a segwit after segwiting it.. so the last 2 years of promoting and pushing for segwit has been nothing more then an empty gesture

itss time we move passed "segwit hope" and realise the trths about it.. and start actually getting bitcoins real and productive code running such as dynamic blocks (there are many different brands with different proposals so dont shout BU as your doom cry)

lol the stats lauda / bitfury have are out of context

firstly its stupidly silly maths to promote "sgwit linear"

without segwit, changing things like
maxtxsigops to 4k has REDUCED the ram cpu usage

in the future dropping it again to 2k can further reduce the ram/cpu usage, yet even with 'bigger blocks' you can reduce cpu/ram usage aswell as over time having an average computer that has more ram in it. EG Raspi1 vs Raspi3.. vs todays basic desktop pc

the real reason people dont run full nodes is not about restrictions of technology.. its about their crap GUI (user interface) and the social use of not needing to have something running 24/7 if they only personally use it once a day.

its about UTILITY that makes being a full node not attractive.
if bitcoin gained utility they would use it more often

current tech limitations is not the problem. its the fact that core dont seem to care about utility or care about users. all they care about is leadership and dominance

10mb per ~10 minutes

lol
i remember 1999 where two mp3 songs (10mb) took 10 minutes... now its seconds..

does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that Call of Duty cannot function bcause online gameplay just cannot work due to hardware/internet
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that skype ....
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that youtube Livestream ....
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that twitch ....

here we go again..
nonsense propoganda from the bscartel* that the only future is hubs..

bscartel want LN hubs and cry that blocksize increases = centralised upstream nodes (hubs). in their mind all they can see is centralisation
all because they want people to believe that everyone wants to run bitcoin on a raspberryPi 1a board(about a decade out of date nearly) and a memorystick


boring fools like that are stuck in the past. the internet has got faster since 2009, hard drives have got bigger and the average ram on basic home computers is more then the past.

real funny part is data for data of a fully validating full archival usernode is the same.
4200 tx's is still ~2mb whether using segwit or legacyx2

what will actually kill the network is the pruning and -nowitness options that then kill off the amount of full nodes (analogy: torrent seeders) and just leaves a cludge of a network of SPV/prunned/no-witness nodes (analogy: torrent leachers)
meaning what Gmaxwell called downstream nodes and what luke JR calls stripped nodes.. become the lower tier (cludgy leacher nodes)

meaning what Gmaxwell called upstream filters and what luke JR calls bridging nodes.. become the higher tier (full seeder nodes) hubs

maybe its time those that adore gmax and core actually do the research, yes some of you i have actually told to do this research atleast a year ago, but yet you still cant get your head passed the buzzwords, gmax and co have spoonfed.. and that leaves you unable to understand it.

segwit causes more breakdown of the full node count.
wake up

*bscartel(barry silbert, blockstream, core, btcc,litecoin, and DCG portfolio, (all loving segwit))

---

as for the mempool bloat graphs.. all the spam spikes relate to times the bscartel want their new bips activated by drumming up how change needs to be made ASAP
check out june 2016, october/november 2016 and then more recently when the other segwit activating bips popped up..

its all just drama to try getting segwit activated

and core wanted a november code activated by christmas without giving a damn about usernodes symbiotic relationship validating said blocks..

so pereira4 is crying because garzic is running tests on btc1 on a separate testnet.

well there are thousands of devs, who can just run btc1 on a public testnet.
lol
it doesnt need everyone to sit on their hands and wait for garzic to test it on his own.. anyone can
so if you want to cry about someone privately testing something, go run the code and test it publicly

..
but anyway i mentioned it before in another FUD topic by pereira4. so here is a summary
using a separate testnet specifically for a new bip is not new, and not garzic setting a precedent

hint: SegNet

have a nice day

pump and dump is not simply about making the price go up artificially(pump) with empty reason or making the price go down artificially(dump) with empty reason

its about making it go extremely high and then extremely low in a short period. usually only really happens with the pointless crap coins that have no utility that can be pumped and dumped easily.

for coins with utility they are usually referred to as speculative spikes and dips. rather than pump and dumps.

before thinking about budget / funding.. any decent movie team starts with the basics.. which is a script/story line

most producers make a 'short', which is kind of like a trailer. or a storyboard, which is like a comic strip and they distribute it out to the major movie VC's who then fund the full production.

so before thinking about being a middle man money manager (sounds scammy) atleast think about the movie first. money last
EG actors, story, plot, script, locations,

you cant just shout out you need $Xm without even knowing the basic logistics like costs
you cant just shout out the basic logistics like costs without knowing who is going to star/direct to know their salary
you cant just shout out who is going to star/direct to know their salary without them seeing a script/plot to think its good
you cant just shout out a script/plot to think its good without writing it and knowing of locations and time needed to film

so start at the basics and dont try being a money grabber of empty 'vapor' projects

.........
if their changes do not meet the rules that nodes/merchants also have then those blocks would get rejected in seconds..
its not about hashrate.. its about rules and whats acceptable to the symbiotic relationship of the network

a block of data is not accepted simply because more hash power was used.

what would actually happen is if the rules were too controversial.. the pool with more hash power could produce more blocks but find the majority of the symbiotic network just rejects more blocks more often.. its that simple.

the end result would be if the nodes that were part of the collaboration would end up in an orphan fight with its peers objecting... which normally ends up with nodes banning communication with each other to avoid the drama.

..

but the end result is .. if a block is not accepted with a merchant, which the pool wants to use to cash out its reward. the pool will realise it has wasted its time and then give in and follow what its favourite merchant prefers. otherwise its just making foreign blocks that the merchant cant accept/understand. and thus the pool cant spend its winnings

its not a simple hash power wins.. there is a symbiotic relationship... best known as CONSENSUS

many people lack understanding of consensus and lack understanding of what makes bitcoin so special.
its multilayered with multiple possible results depending on scenario

did you even check the dates of the spam
june 2016 (core bip needed activating so they spammed to cause drama to rush it through)
october/november->  (core bip needed activating so they spammed to TRY(but fail to)cause drama to rush it through) thus they had to keep it going hoping time would be extra pressure..


pereira4 &billy.. you keep on pointing fingers in the wrong direction.. cant you atleast see your reddit scripts are old/unbacked up by stats/ and debunked and outdated.

firstly CORE removed the fee controls and screamed "just pay more".. dont blame pools.
secondly 'miners' are just asic users..
what you need to be defining is malicious 'pools' that collate the data into blocks. not the miners which just hash out a hash and have no control of block content or fees..
miners and pools are separate functions of the symbiotic relationship of bitcoin

the main fee damaging tactics are those of the core developers with their new fee war pressure code, and pools only accepting the high fee's first.
(funnily enough its BTCC and other bscartel pools that do this more)


as for segwit which still relies on a 1mb base block(141) so the fight for space is not really reduced.(segwit keypairs dont just sit in witness without touching base)
...

personally the segwit2x is just as empty a hope as segwit1x(141) because as soon as the segwit aspect of segwit2x is activated (which actually activates segwit(141) early)

..the node count capable of accepting the 2xbaseblock part needs to happen for the 2x base to actually flourish within 3 months.. otherwise all that happens is segwit(141) and then mempool hell of everyone trying and failing to move funds to new keypairs as the bloat would cause many people waiting days and having to resend with higher fee's just to try getting funds into new keypairs.. (stats show months of mempool headaches as a minimum)

..
the real solution would have been a legacy4x and also limit txsigops to 4k or less forever to mitigate the 'linear v quadratic' crybabies.
 then without having to shift majority of funds to new keypairs, users will get more capacity.
other bloat code could be added to reduce the greed of allowing single users x% of blockspace
EG why does anyone need 100kb of blockspace for a single tx... thats just bloat causing greed.. that needs reducing/ making leaner

activating segwit DOES NOTHING!!!

the whole fee/malle/spam/ promises is only achievable if (especially the malicious) users actually move funds to NEW KEYPAIRS AFTER activation..

the "activation" itself does NOTHING
however the 'promises' are about getting peoples funds over to new keypairs.. and then and only then POSSIBLY see benefit is only gonna happen if a good percentage of people spend their UTXO's and never use legacy tx's again

think about the bloat on the mempool if everyone tried moving their funds to new keypairs... with 55million UTXO's sat their on legacy keypairs

it not about activation.. its about keypairs.

which is where i laugh about litecoin, where even the pools advocating for segwit dont want to move their own funds to segwit keypairs.
its a total laugh..

segwit is an empty promise of social drama

pereira4

wake up and stop spewing reddit scripts

even softforks can cause splits

trying to assume hardfork=split is the old debunked script of atleast 12 months ago. its time you updated your mantra..

consensus will keep things togther..
soft and hard is just about pool triggered alone (soft) or node and pool triggered(hard)

infact by having nodes part of it nodes are then ready to accept the data from pools so infact there are less chance of issues due to nodes existing to validated the data rather then just playing hot potato relaying data they cannot fully validate

maybe spend less time on reddit and more time reading code/running scenario's you will learn something

---

core shot themselves in the foot with their clumsy pool only activation
yea they tried bribing pools. but pools care more about block acceptability to the network than they do about all-inclusive paid weekend parties.
the safest way to activate is a node consensus first pools consensus second.

and thats why 141 was not getting much growth, because pools know about the consensus/symbiotic relationship of the network

 pereira4 and billybob
there is no point you sing 2 accounts to say the same garbage
if all you care about is the bitcoin price then you are just FIAT lovers.
go check out litecoin.. the pools that pretended to support segwit are not even using it.. they are still using legacy tx's for their coinbase
you have no clue about how segwit works, what it cannot achieve or what it is suppose to achieve.
all you ever shout out is "activate=speculate"

everyone with brains knows that malicious users will continue spamming using legacy, so segwit solves nothing

its like trying to reduce gun kills in certain neighbourhoods by offering to voluntarily move everyone out of the neighbourhood into a gun free zone.
the only issues is.. the ones that dont have guns will move. but even then the ones without guns and never attempted to use guns still have to drive through and leave their parents in the gun ridden neighbourhood.
where the few now vacant apartments in the gun ridden neighbourhood does not really help overcrowding. nor does it solves the double spending drivebythugs who will continue to doublespend driveby(malle attack)

so stop your "activate for $10k speculation" and all your fake graphs and finger pointing.. atleast grasp logic and show something real and justified

LOL
your wrong about the bold part
the market CAP is a empty bubble number of empty maths and no financial backing. and has nothing to do with REAL MARKET SHARE

until ethereum shows real stats of USERS.. MERCHANTS and also public knowledge/utility.. ethereum is meaningless

i can set up an altcoin in 10 seconds with 5trillion coins. sell one coin on a exchange for $1  and bam, $5trillion market CAP
but my alt will have no users, no financial backing, no merchants. no public knowledge.. thus is NOT taking away from the REAL MARKET SHARE

the market cap is taking a price of a SINGLE TRADE and multiplying it
not by the volume processed that day.
not by the volume of users
not by the volume coins spent, moved

but by the empty number of coins created.

as i explained with the scenario of creating an alt in 10 seconds.. anyone can fake a market cap
the market cap is not a market share statistic. its just a speculators empty bubble number to scream about