"which is following the best and most experienced, diverse development team and their road map"
"team"
"their"

my morals and ethos is that teams come and go.
when you start to see bitcoin as us and ours meaning EVERYONES. instead of "theirs" you will see things better

so i only support code and things that count towards the direction of bitcoin over the next 120 years. not some team and their temporary road pothole filling patch thats half baked that wont last long

did i get your post deleted? is blockstream a buzzword or a corporation name.
P.S i am not even registered on reddit.

to me reddit is like fox news, racial slurs and threats of attack unless a certain line is toed

its funny how r/bitcoin has been noticed how its ok to talk about litecoin alt and elements:segwit alt or anything that is backed by the blockstream/DCG portfolio

but if anyone mentions anything negative about the elements:segwit alt, or litecoins adoption of the same said alt or DCG portfolio.
or positive about implementations that are part of bitcoin but not blockstream supported they get deleted. much like your thread

cant you atleast admit your own motives one more time

since when do i need some tyrant to tell me who i can get pregnant and be part of the same DNA as me..
thats a decision between only the parties involved on the same equal and mutual decision agreement.

its called consensus. a relationship of unity. which is different to centralised control

it seems you prefer the domestic abuse BDSM relationship. so i think you are missing the whole point of bitcoin

you live in the fiat world of control and dominance where you have to reply on someone above you.

it appears you also need to rely on the reddit scripts of FuD to spoonfeed you. please take a step back from the keyboard for 5 minutes and really think what you are advocating.

its time you put reddit on your blocked site list. its filling your mind with FuD

all the implementations such as classic bitcoin ec bitcoin xt and bitcoin BU all can happily play side by side on a peer network. core can be part of it by just allowing a base block size increase.

its only core opposing being a peer network supporter.

core want a controlled and ruled TIER network. its literally written in their code and documentation (upstream filters)
core are the ones begging all other implementations to F**k off, get REKT,

however the other implementations that want to remain as a single network are just going to use consensus and stay as a diverse decentralised peer network

look at cores tactics
1. go soft, avoid node decision of consensus vote
2. go soft to give only pools the vote
3. if pools say no, UASF bomb the pools.
4. if the community say no to UASF then do a mandatory activation with a trigger for late 2018 no matter how many pools or nodes vote or veto

core cannot take no for an answer.

yet other implementations that have been running for 2+ years have made no threats of bombing pools, or threats of killing opposing nodes.
and are jst plodding along waiting for natural consensus to form, no deadlines, no threats

now before you reply. please take a step back from the key board and think about it.
remember to not wear a core defence hat.

and answer this simple question.
if hearne wrote segwit and it was line for line identical. would you support it?

"rule over bitcoin"?

no one should rule over bitcoin.
as others have said there are dozens of different implementations that can all run side by side on a diverse decentralised peer network.
thats what all the different implementations want a single network of diverse decentralisation..
only core oppose this and want a TIER network

if you think that only core should "rule over bitcoin" then take a step back from the keyboard have a cup of coffee and actually think about the words you are saying

kprawn your using the reddit script buzzwords "bugcoin".
seems you cannot get passed the BU vs segwit debate.

now ask yourself
if every line of code was the same.. what if hearne invented segwit. would your emotions change

are u defending the code or the devs

secondly taking BU  for instance because you mentioned it.. you do realise the "bug" was a core 0.12 bug. and patched in core 0.13
BU patched it in their version. but people in core that knew the consequences of anyone using the core0.12 and so advertised that some people are still using the core 0.12 variant under the title BU. and actually listed how to attack it.

its worth doing research and less time with the reddit buzzwords.

there are many implementations that have different ways of allowing real onchain extra tx capacity.
with segwit. because its reliant on the baseblock and reliant on people using new keypairs, to allow partial data outside base block.  maths ans stats shows that only IF 100% of people use segwit keys the network would get ... guess what.. 7tx/s.. emphasis only with 100% certain key utility..  much like the 2009-2017 expectation that never becam a reality.. so even with segwit nothing is really changing capacity wise

yep a one time gesture tx capacity POSSIBILITY with many ifs and maybes. and no guarantee's.. where you cant re segwit a segwit and you are then reliant on waiting another couple years debate to try getting anything else.

the last year and a half have been a waste of time yet those in blockstream, including now recently recruited samson mow want to keep pushing half baked segwit right upto 2019.

core need a plan B
a single merkle proper network upgrade where the blocksize parameter/preference limit can be altered at runtime. so that users and pools are not waiting to be spoonfed by corporate devs.

hard fork does not mean automatic split.

even going soft fork can end up as a split.

the truth is there are a few different end results of hard and soft.
but those script readers only spread gossip of softs best case scenario and hard's worse case scenario to try falsely making people think soft is the only way.

first of all, all the independent implementations do NOT want a split.
that was offered ages ago and rejected.

what is wanted is a consensus upgrade of one unified network. this is why the independent devs set no deadlines or made any threats.

lets say those wanting a single merkle over 1mb base block upgrade.

if none of the nodes accept it its rejected in 2 seconds.

if a few nodes accpt it. then those nodes accept it and then its orphaned when the next block comes along. because the other nodes rejected it in a couple seconds.

if there was near 50-50 then there is much more orphan drama. taking a couple blocks of fighting to then settle down.

if there was high majority acceptance then the orphan drama cools down but in favour of the over1mb  where by the minority are then finding they are rejecting/orphaning and then being left unsynced.

the only time that there is actually a altcoin is if the nodes of opposing sides actually disconnect and ban communications with their opposing rule node.

if communication continues between nodes. then its just orphan drama

debunked by gmax thinking anything not core is not bitcoin.

so all of the dozens of implementations that are actually running and have been running on bitcoins mainnet with active code and wallets in gmax's eye are not bitcoin.. thats a centralist mindset in my eye.

P.S it was Gmax and icebreaker that started the drama with the REKT campaigns.

how can gmax say its al independent and then REKT anyone that actually goes independent.
and dont get me started on the many closed door 100 only special invites to roundtable meetings

gmax is just angry that even with all the effort of using the anyonecanspend backdoor to avoid a node community vote and using the two merkle header backdoor that he now realises is not as backward compatible with asics.. so now needing to threaten to kill off pools too and push through the half baked code...

gmax refuses to listen to the community for a proper version release that has all communities needs met and can unite around. and instead wants to complain about why his half baked code is meeting such resistance.

yep he bypassed node consensus. and willing to keep the drama alive until 2019 by employing samson mow to keep the half baked version pressure cooking until late 2018, without checking or caring if its missing any ingredients that would actually be happily accepted when served

"couple developers founded a generic blockchain services company and choose to fund just one and a half full time headcount to contribute"

lets see who is in the blockstream team and also have bitcoin github commits.
1. Gmax
2. PWuille
3. LDash
4. Matt corallo
5. JTimon
6. MFriedenbach
theres more i just cant be assed to go full hog to disprove gmax


but only 1 and a half people get $70m... DANNNGG
is that $45m for Gmax and $25m for im guessing PWuille

no wonder why (in gmax's own non verbatim words) matt corrallo walked away from blockstream to work for chaincode..
...but still has a blockstream namebadge

P.S how can you have half a fulltimer??

to add to this point

bitcoinEC
bitcoin classic
bitcoin xt
plus other implementations(some bitcoin core with dynamics but showing core in user agent to hide from DDoS attacks)

would all happily accept blocks should pools create native blocks that are simply over 1mb

based on actual transaction data of real use cases expect at best 2.1mb..

that is if 100% of users use segwit keys to get 2.1mb of data for ~7tx/s only IF everyone does it.
yet since 2009 there has been the 'expectation' that bitcoin 1mb would have got 7tx/s yet in 8 years never achieved it.

so even after 8 years of averaging maybe 3.5tx/s all segwit is offering is a half gesture no guarantee best expectation of... 7tx/s

but spammers will still use native keys to spam so even if 99% convert to segwit. it only takes a couple people to spam the block with native keys to show no real visible difference.

dont you get it yet. after 8 years the expectation is still not even a guarantee of 7tx/s

but have you asked yourself
1. do you know the actual stats of bitcoin mining vs actual geo-location. to use a racist term like Chinacoin
2. do you know that using the term chinacoin is not an original thought buzzword, but just a repeat from somewhere else you have read. and your just repeating what you have read elsewhere

how much research do you actually do after reading a reddit script before posting rhetoric

4. lets say you realised that BU was 99.9% the same code as bitcoin core 0.12 and the assert bug was actually part of bitcoin core and not fixed until v0.13.
would your opinion change if
gmaxwell released it as is.
or
a banker released it as is.
or
someone neither in blockstream or a banker released it as is

opposing a view is different from shilling.

my post history has been very open about my views

however there are some people who have created an account where even their very first post contains the standard buzzwords that have been repeated by others spouting the same rhetoric.*

the solution.

when a code, concept, idea or opinion pops up from any side. ask yourself

what if hearne or a wall street banker done it.
meaning what if instead of blockstream, an outsider/obvious banker wrote the exact same segwit or dynamic code. line for line where the only difference is who wrote it

would you defend the code or the dev. would your opinion change

i know i expect my post to get deleted not due to the context. but because the OP has bias

only 6 weeks ago: OP's first post 2 known scripted buzzwords

when core use a backdoor to go soft its called a "potential improvements to the protocol"
when anything else wants to use it its called an attack.

ask yourself:
if hearne made segwit with the intention of offering future backdoors to be made easier to do things soft for things like commercial LN hubs for banks. where the code was line for line exactly the same as blockstreams..where the only difference is WHO implemented it

would you call segwits half baked code a "potential improvements to the protocol" or an attack on bitcoin.

would you then think that filling that backdoor by allowing the mining community to secure bitcoin further with a higher difficulty by allowing asic boost an efficiency benefit


think open minded
having a back door where code changes can be slid in without needing node consensus.. vs  allowing mining to be more efficiently done to increase difficulty. which would you choose.

remember saying let the coders have the back door and keep bitcoin miners from being 20% efficient can be used against bitcoin by outside parties.

if by "value" your talking about price. forget it. thats just temporary drama.

think about "value" as utility and ability. which then as a action-reaction (cause and effect) positively helps "price". but without the action/cause (utility/ability) dont expect the price to keep a healthy resistance point.

EG
imagine some chemical entered the atmosphere that would cause gold to become brittle and less conductive. thus removing golds features of utility such as circuitry and jewellery. do you think that gold would remain a store of value and stay at a healthy price with a healthy resistance point that stops it from falling.

the cartel behind blockstream (DCG) are moving over to litecoin.

BTCC+coinbase cant be ignored in that group.

soon we will start seeing coinbase make announcements of how many merchants will be able to accept LTC via coinbases merchant tools. and then the funny part will be how blockstream will point fingers that its not blockstreams (dcg cartel) fault but bitcoin users

i somewhat agree
never designed for 7billion people.
- but no reason to hold it back from being used by a few dozen-hundred million. using doomsdays of "wont reach 7bill by midnight"

never designed for free use
- but no reason to force fees up now to $1 using doomsdays of 'just pay more coz pools need it by midnight.

however
we could expand bitcoin naturally using proper code that grows naturally over time.. not half baked gestures that still cant promise 7tx/s onchain
we could expand bitcoin naturally using proper code that grows naturally over time.. to keep fees reasonable that take care of mining in DECADES
we could develop the GUI and hardware wallets to not be so complex.

but instead we have been left with the debates of one group that just wants half promises that dont match the communities overal united desires that will continue being debated until 2019 if they had their way

barclays UK invented pingit years ago
https://www.pingit.com/

and now working on a smartwatch/fitbit band to make it even easier to spend funds fast
https://www.bpay.co.uk/

in the UK sending money to someone else has always been free. but not always instant (usually 1 second to 12 hours averaging 1 minute)
now its easier by using usernames online and a swipe of a wrist in stores

you do know that lauda has no authority.
does not know c++
has not read all the documentation.. right.

he think that because he has a commit (added text to documentation(not code)) he now thinks and play the authority. and think people should bow down to him.

yet when rebutting his points with code and stats his only reply is "wrong because insult"

the best lesson and way to think is
"what if hearn made the same code decisions as blockstream" would you defend the code. or blockstream

it works pretty much every time to determine who cares and knows the code/feature, and who is just defending a particular dev

i myself love to learn everything i can and have found that its easier to tone it down to laymans speech as best as possible.

yes i get backlash by some who think i do not know what i am talking about because i am not using the latest techno jargon buzzword of the week, but thats their issue, concerning trying to help their own ego's by preferring the jargon rather than actually explain the end-user experience in a way anyone can understand.

EG its like if you become a doctor, try to avoid saying things like, im sorry you have suffered an acute myocardial infarction. and just say im sorry your heart stopped for 10 seconds.

it may seem more abrupt and frank, but atleast the context gets across better

this:

Bitcoin uses peer-to-peer technology to operate with no central authority or banks; managing transactions and the issuing of bitcoins is carried out collectively by the network. Bitcoin is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part. Through many of its unique properties, Bitcoin allows exciting uses that could not be covered by any previous payment system.

becomes:

Bitcoin uses a method of managing transactions between people without a central manager. issuing out new funds as a reward to certain parties who follow the rules of this diverse network. Bitcoin is designed to be public, no single body owns or controls the network and everyone can take part. Through many of its unique properties, Bitcoin allows exciting uses that could not be covered by any previous payment system.