blockstreams tier network

vs

node consensus per network using consensus to grow without blockstream spoonfed limits...

you think the tier network is less centralised??

here is a lesson
1. unless nodes (important) are there and united and same level playing field to save off large orphan risks... pools wont do anything.

this means nodes have to unite around a consensus first. then pools will follow.
that is where blockstream went wrong.. trying to bypass nodes by going soft.
smart pools wont do anything unless nodes are there..

pools have said many times they wont do anything if theres more then a few % risk of orphans as that will hurt their income.
they can wave a flag or a hat to say they support something but they wont actually create it at any activation date if ther is orphan risk.

so its nodes that matter most.

solution.. ASK THE COMMUNITY FOR A SHOPING LIST OF FEATURES EVERYONE WANTS. and all unite in building a version of the protocol in all the different brands/langages that fulful that list.

call it planB
EG core v0.15B
EG BU vX.xB
EG classic vx.xB
and so on.

yep that means stop using these several roundtable meeting to be used as bribes and ass-kiss events.. but to actually use their EARS to listen and actually settle on features that will actually unite the community and solve the issues

things like
limiting tx sigops to 4k or below IN CONSENSUS.H
allowing a hardish rule for blocksize of 8mb (long term debate ender (even core devs and others know 8mb is network safe))
and allow NODES to set a secondary preferential limit amount below that, starting at say 2mb. that is dynamic. (yep EC)

thus keeping POOLS inline with majority below preference and way below consensus.
(imagine it like nodes having a lil more sway over when/if pools should have moved beyond 0.5mb in 2013, even while the 1mb consensus existed)

thus letting nodes have a little more say in when pools increment up without actually causing real orphan stress/drama
other features like xthin and compact blocks finding a united way to communicate across the network between the different brands and get the data they need.
where by the core devs WORK WITH other implementations (OMG did i just say core devs should try being independent and help the network.. yes i did)

probably from your groupy reddit scripters wondering how to hide adam backs CEO puppetry and barry silberts VC extra strings.. by then pretending other implementations have strings..

TL:DR;
dont look at the blockstream puppet strings, look over there we can see everyone else is tied up. but please dont look at blockstreams puppet strings

ever ask yourself.. why within the same month of samson promoting UASF. organising a bounty, declaring a winner and delivering the bounty to the winner, samson also got a new job with blockstream..

let me guess your answer, because his job is just to be a janitor, sweeping the floor.
much like luke Jr pretending not to be a developer at the hong kong agreement but just an individual with as much power as a janitor

P.S
lauda stop defending blockstream employee's.

whats on his head. is that a badger?? nope its a UASF cap

segwit has nothing to do with blockstream??

care to check elements:segwit.. segwit is a blockstream invention.. not a 'independent core' concept
care to check P.wuilles employment who coded the main cludge of it..

it become a roadmap when gmax wrote the road map.

as for WHO decided segwit's activation
care to check gmaxwell and Luke Jr's going soft POOL ONLY vote

and where that POOL ONLY.. only has 35% vote which is no where near super majority.

as for things like UASF, care to check samson mows employment and what his current role is

seriously.. open your eyes

oh lauda. when you get some spare time.. look passed the butcheek of blockstream. and actually think about the bitcoin community.

65% of nodes is not super majority - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
35% of pools is not super majority - http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

stop only getting fake results from your echo chamber of censored groupies..(luke JR and his fake 100,000 nodes lol)
what you are not understanding is that you are like a music bang groupy who thinks the band you adore is the best because all the other groupies you talk to love and adore it..

you are not realising that you are only talking to people on the music bands tour bus. so you cannot see anything beyond the tour buses headlights. you even want the tourbus radio to be tuned into a music station that only plays the blockstream tune

FTFY..

G.max - blockstream had nothing to do with the REKT campaign.. you really wanna push it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13070891#msg13070891

here is gmaxwell both mentioning the testnet bug like its a problem where testnet should not bug out and should flow like a real coin...(facepalm). oh and also being in the REKT campaign topic.

.. oh and the bip9 threat to maybe at 90% kill off 5% to get to 95% and then kill off the other 5% to get to prettmy much above 99%
yep read bip 9, yep it can be changed. even gmaxwell admits this.

^ this is where the UASF comes in (A leads to B leads to C)

speaking of UASF
i wonder who is heading up that campaign...
oh yea Samson mow, newest blockstream employee

lauda seriously you are making it too obvious that you are defending blockstream and not a diverse decentralised peer network..

gmaxwell uses a bug found on TESTNET.. as a fake way to suggest that classic doesnt work..

UM. testnet is suppose to break. thats the point of it.. throw every attack vector at it..
by trying to presume that testnet should have rules is like saying a cat litter box should only contain diamonds and the cat is not allowed to defecate in it.

---

so gmaxwell.. never says he cant recall a bug that causes an error in core?
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9997
... wait..is this gmaxwell himself having an error with his own client!!!!!!!

1. if you stop reading reddit, you will see that no threats are actually made. the non-blockstream endorsed implementations are just plodding along, no deadlines no PoW nukes, no mandatory threats..

2. if you read all the REKT campaigns and comments gmaxwell writes you will see where the real threats are made
3. you keep thinking its a "take over" rather then keeping the network diverse while upgrading to new limits in a way that avoids blockstream domination
4. all the 'rekt xt 2014' rekt classic 2015 rekt BU 2016-17 are all dramatic distractions purely to try getting people to cower down and sumbit themselves over to relying on blockstream.
5. blockstream/core are not perfect. they even admit they prefer to hid their issues for atleast 30 days AFTER a fix is found

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10364

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3ABug

if you think that prtending blockstream(core) is perfect and should be treated as the supreme being of bitcoin control. then you are not thinking about bitcoin the network. your only thinking about FIAT2.0

..
oh and lastly
https://blockchain.info/block-height/465117

nope(if the promise had merit/ were truly "backward compatible")
secretly YES, but shhhh

and thats the point in me saying for him to just do it.. because it then reveals its not as backward compatible and safe as promised.

what blockstream are not telling you is activation day is about changing the DNS seeds to make it so segwit nodes become the main tier of the network and old nodes are then manually add-noded as a secondary network layer

its ven in the documentation.. if you dont want to upgrade, you have to download segwit to use as a filter(gmaxbuzzword) / bridge(luk jr buzzword) to connect to the network

and then all the blocks are then stripped and formatted to the old nodes if the tier network allows old nodes to connect to it.
what will be noticed is the old nodes become part of a cesspit of incompatible nodes that connect and disconnect to other nodes that end up not having good block height, delayed syncing, or just prunned so that the amount of clean connectable nodes becomes harder to obtain.

as explained before

for someone to steal ur coins so fast means they have your private key.

things to check

think about all bitcoin related downloads you have
have you ever downloaded any of them scammy "bitcoin generators"
where did you get your bitcoinJ from

did the bitcoinj program generate your address or did you import it from another program/pc previously.

OP's topic explained via "last week with john oliver"

OP's video may not be available in some countries. some other videos have parts snipped out. but here is one that explains it but has the video reflected / mirror imaged. so still not perfect

https://youtu.be/aL2nJ8WgAhc?t=1m17s

reality check
bitcoin holders see that a brand crashed but network survived, giving hop/proof that their funds/assets are safe in a diverse network.

reality check
BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin(?maybe not), btcd, bitcoinj, and all the other implementations want a PEER NETWORK of diverse decentralisation on a single chain

reality check
"Seriously though imagine the consequences if blockstream became the only codebase, the price alone would drop so hard if there was a bug in the only codebase. Bitcoin is too valuable to let such joker's have their way."
FTFY
hope this opens your mind to why diversity=good vs blockstream control=bad... rather than the opposite


P.S i have made no insults but i predict my post would get deleted as it does not fit the propaganda of REKTing anything not blockstream endorsed.

lol

nope, but when you stop playing the BU vs debate and start thinking about the network and thinking about the 120 years and the direction bitcoin is going. you start to see the big picture.

that trying to cause drama just to make teams x,y,z bad to give the network over to blockstream is actually worse then calling out bugs of other implementations.

also hiding cores issues to pretend they are perfect is not helping the network either.
hiding core issues does not help

if you care about bitcoin and are independent you would not be kissing anyones ass..
if you care about bitcoin and are independent you would not think or dream that your utopian god(dev) will still be around in 2-120 years to look after you.

it just sometimes takes a while to shake people out of their blockstream devotion dream

actually segwit is not as backward compatible as promised/promoted.. its stripped and tiered to be backward translatable.

but should there be an issue where nodes need to downgrade and go back to a single block.. (deactivating segwit). all the people with funds on segwit keys get stuck or end up having funds treated like anyonecanspend.
yep thats right.,, shocking revelation

also although segwit creates a tier network that filters out older nodes from receiving unconfirmed segwit tx's at normal tx relay(prior to block confirmation) a malicious person could MANUALLY copy and paste a tx from a segwit node and put it into a standard block and mess with that tx.

this is why blockstream are screaming for anything non-segwit to "f**k off" because of that risk.
this is why blockstream even if soo backward compatible blockstream dont just activate at any rate.
this is why blockstream even if soo backward compatible blockstream wont lt non-segwit pools add a normal block after activation.

i have already, multiple times said to gmax, if segwit is so backward compatible why not just make a segwit TX, hand it to BTCC and get BTCC to make a segwit block containing a segwit tx. to show that its network safe and backward compatible..

as for BU drama
689->281 =408 drop

still not beating last times 420 drop or cores recently 560 node drop or even the core node crash of 2013..


so BU still has to get a 560 node attack to surpass cores loss

you have no clue..
now you are meandering into trying to argue about hash power.. yet you dont even understand hashpower either

you are presuming if it takes pool A 10minutes.. then it would take pool B 20 minutes, pool C 30 minutes.
that is not the case.
pools B and C could have found a block just SECONDS later.. but because there is only 1 winner. no one cares about the runners up timing.

if you take 1 pool away its not going to take 20 minutes to make a block. it can still take 10 minutes average block, just less competition so that the runners up now become winners more often, without affecting the average time much

i think its time you go to a shop and get some dice.. and some friends and family and play out some scenarios of randomness.. and see some real world scenarios play out.. it will surprise you

take your 10% of network hash scnario for instance
buy 100 dice..

get 10 people and give them 10 dice each. and ask them all to keep rolling until they get a total of lets say 600(adding each roll)
at very luckiest 1 person MIGHT get it in 10 rolls.. at unluckiest 1 person might get it in 60 rolls.

what you wont find is that if after playing the game for 2 weeks you found out the average took 20 rolls .. does not mean
if you took one person away it would average 40 rolls,
took one person away it would average 60 rolls,
took one person away it would average 80 rolls,
took one person away it would average 100 rolls
took one person away it would average 120 rolls
took one person away it would average 140 rolls
took one person away it would average 160 rolls
took one person away it would average 180 rolls
took one person away it would average 200 rolls

you would see the average would still be ~20 rolls. but now there are less people competing. so other people win more often.. and getting the result just miliseconds/couple roll variance before the other

1. pools are not going to waste 16 hours to double prove what they learn in 3-seconds to 10 minutes.. which is they cannot spend funds
2. pools are not going to waste days/weeks/month to really trying to push it in the HOPE that nodes download a MD5 hashing rule implementation..
after all even core suggest it would take a year to get clear node acceptance..

reality is..
if there was some secret cartel of "lets make md5 blocks for the next 6 months to force nodes to be less secured"
initially 20 pools have that motive.. but soon enough a pool gets greedy and jumps back to sha256 and wins every block.

nope. because IF pools right now made blocks 465623-465723 that were, say using MD5 hashing..

by this evening.. they would find out that all the merchants wont see their rewards of 465622+
the pools would have most definetly realised that merchants wont buy their 465622 reward by at most 465623

so pools wont continue making md5 hashed blocks for 16 hours because 1 pool will see a nice easy income by switching back to sha256 and win every block that is spendable to the merchants and have no competition