FTFY

1. i dont get paid for my opinion or by any brand or by roger..
2. seems all you can do is repeat a script

3. what has revealing the fact that the exchanges themselves are rather empty compared to 4 years ago thus able to move the markets easily and cheaply got to do with any brand of implementation.

the funny part is in th last 5 years of being in bitcoin i have not bothered making "price up price down" speculations based on brands.
i have looked at the real reasons. such as being able to move the market by $1 from $1161 to $1160 ($16mill market cap fluctuation) for just $20 spend on an exchange

segwit only increases for those moving funds over to segwit.
do not even pretend that everyone (46m utxo) will move funds to segwit to achieve a constant utility they promise.

their promise is empty, and a one time 'possible' gesture feature. you cant resegwit a segwit and you cant guarantee it will be long term. and you cant guarantee how much of a gesture it will be.

infact to get people over to segwit is in itself going to cause more issues because people end up needing to move funds across so it will be months of mempool bloat caused by people trying to move funds across to new keypairs

its not a utopian network wide thing that happens right at activation day where everyone instantly has room to move funds around easier

real funny part is if you look at the markets.. they are being moved by $1 increments. using only a couple btc or less



Gdax
going from the bottom up
0.13btc moved price from $1158->$1159
5.293btc moved price from $1159->$1160
2.386btc moved price from $1160->$1159
63.857btc moved price from $1159->$1160
10.325btc moved price from $1160->$1161
0.02btc moved price from $1161->$1160
2.433btc moved price from $1160->$1161
2btc moved price from $1161->$1160
2.551btc moved price from $1160->$1159
16.67btc moved price from $1159->$1160
1.4btc moved price from $1160->$1159

the real reason the price is volitile is because it does not take much to move the market price

5.85 btc = $1


bitfinex
5.85 btc =  $1⇑
0.5 btc =  $1⇑
0.067 btc =  $1⇓
0.1 btc =  $1⇑
0.829 btc =  $1⇓
0.249 btc =  $1⇑
0.170 btc =  $1⇓

and so on

when the blockstreamists are watching the fiat price every minute and panicking over every up and down movement. you start to see they only care about fiat.

maybe its time they go read the genesis block and really understand the purpose of bitcoin,

prices move up and down all the time.

all i see is the blockstreamists watch fiat prices.
when it goes down. they then go searching for anything they can find to turn the reason for it into some fud story
when it goes up. they then go searching for anything they can find to turn the reason for it into some fud glory

trying hard to create a narrative

LOL
no way to back it up ??
LOL

have you seen how many people have grabbed the core code and made their own client after doing their own tweaks that are not actually part of 'core'

there are 8 'branches' (versions of core)
there are 7857 forks (people taking the code so they can do their own tweaks away from cores repo)

think about that logically

when time itself proves he did not make asics purely to attack segwit
when maths shows he is not even 20% luckier
when logic shows the same

all that is left is that segwit is not the utopian codebase made by immortal gods, but humans who thought they could slide in a tier network via a backdoor to avoid community consensus, and last month a flaw in that has been found.

the only direction the fingers should be pointing is back at the devs to re-try something a little different the community will accept

think logically. practically and rationally.

he has been involved in mining ASIC hardware since early 2013, and started selling them to ANYONE by about october 2013
by being involved so long actually debunks the fake drama of asics being made purely to attack segwit.
especially since segwits public release was october 2016

lol refute the content, which i know you cant.

secondly.
you calling me a "bug" guy is just revealing your repeating words from other people by using such scripted buzzwords.
same as people trying to pigeon hole me in what ever other decentralised implementation was last year and year before.
its funny how that script keep repeating itself

thirdly
if you think the debate is just BU vs core then you really have been fooled by your reddit scripts.
(hint there are over a dozen different /brands).

the debate is more about blockstream centralisation vs bitcoin network.
where by if you defend blockstream more then bitcoin network (of many implementations) you are revealing more about your own rhetoric that you want blockstream centralisation

where by if you defend blockstream more then bitcoin network (of many implementations) by thinking only core should exist and only because you love the devs of blockstream (P wille, gmax, luke Jr etc) again you are revealing more about your own rhetoric that you want blockstream centralisation

however if you wak up and realise that the bitcoin network can and should run for centuries and realis that blockstreams dev team will move on in a couple years to hyperledger or retire (yep human coders are temporary)
you will see ass kissing devs, and kissing their ass over such a temporary half gesture.. rather than thinking long term about the bitcoin network as a whole.. will be your own failing

when the ASIC boost drama first got publicised by gmaxwells tears of woe
i done some maths on the top 4 pools to see which pools were 'luckier' than others


i have checked other dates and seen no 20% advantage
even today there is only~ +-1% variance of luck

lol remove illogic of time travel and all your left with is the logic of:
asicboost existed before segwit
segwits 'going soft' with 2merkle method hit a snag


solution do a proper node+pool CONSENSUS with extra added features like dynamics. then the community will be united and no snag

blockstream removed many onchain fee control mechanisms..
- removed priority formulae
- removed reactive fee estimation (so fee's dont instantly drop in low demand)
- added average fee (so fee's stay up even in low demand)

funny how coders remove code rules and instead just scream "just pay more"

all so onchain fee's are now ~$0.80(160sat/b on average tx of 400byte) instead of $0.04(average fee a year+ ago)
so that when they control the LN DNS seed to grab fee's they can charge anything from 0.01-0.75(per route through them) and people will still think its "cheaper" than normal onchan transactions

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 1m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 2m people a day - repay $70m in 3 years

so imagine $0.07 LN fee for 10m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months
so imagine $0.035 LN fee for 20m people a day - repay $70m in 4 months

or you just cant accept that blockstream dev's have flaws, and are human.. rather than gods

asic boost existed before segwit

if you think asics are attacking blockstream then time travel must be possible.

yet, using logic
gmax one month ago realised his 'going soft' approach was not as compatible with the network as he thought. but instead of re-coding segwit to fit around the network he wants his flock to point fingers at the pools and blame them for why segwit will have issues being accepted.

funny part is, gmax and his flock actually proposed to 'go soft' purely to avoid users consensus. as a way to escape anyone sayin no.. but now gmax has found the code for going soft is his own downfall

if only gmax actually done a proper 1merkle full node+pool consensus and using that oppertunity to include dynamics aswell.. alot of time, delay and debate could have been avoided

lol
all nodes that are ok with dynamics and REAL mainblock growth have the code there already. (my node has variable limit right now. i can change it at runtime and not need to download anything later)

no need to download a new implementation later for those that are already dynamic ready.. no need to play around with resyncing no need to change the network topology no need to get people to move to different keypairs.

its a simple. if there is a safe majority to not cause much fuss of orphans or node drop off.. pools just make bigger blocks. right at the point its safe to.

yet those wanting segwit WILL need to download something AFTER activation, ven if they have v0.14 they will still need to be spoonfed another version if segwit activates

blockstream made many foolish statements
"its ok sheep you dont need to upgrade, be happy to live in the cesspit"
"its ok everything is compatible if you accept the fact you become reliant on a tier network"
"when activated everything is fixed and utopia for everyone"

look deeper down the rabbit hole about the new drama of segwit getting into litecoin
names to look out for
charlie lee - litecoin master.. employed by coinbase
bobby lee BTCC pool (charlies brother)

now check out
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
blockstream
BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coinbase

even another drama event of bcoin made by purse..
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse

all the segwit news buzz
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coindesk

the 'economic majority in favour of segwit'
http://dcg.co/portfolio they are all under the dcg VC list.

yep blockstream are IN DEBT to a tune of $70m+ and they are really needing segwit to be pushed to get controlling interest in bitcoin so that the debts can be repaid via trading and LN hub fee's (how else do you think blockstream will relay the "loan")

then ask yourself with segwits release in october. BTCC was first to jump on the band wagon without even giving themselves a couple weeks to even review the code. they jumped in full on instantly. and are now pushing the same for litecoin.

and let us not forget the unpaid spell check interns hoping to kiss ass by being blockstream loyal, for the dream of getting a blockstream job.. funny part is they think its a $70m pocket of money ready to hand out. reality is blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70m if they cant get control

and lastly.
if you think that novembr 2017 would be a give up and try somhing different and accept no mean no if not activated by then. pfft.
blockstream will just ignore the pool/user abstaining and just cause another year of delays and doing nothing more then re-pushing segwit as it all the way upto the end of 2018
so dont expect the drama to end this year
http://www.uasf.co/

please note all links and quotes are pulled from the sources of blockstream/DCG. they are not random opinions from unknown reddit script writers or just propaganda wrote by random people

lol i know your cencentration span is only 2 paragraphs. but please try reading more.

here.. even from the docs of your overlord
http://www.uasf.co/

translation. instead of waiting for nodes to upgrade, they just need to signal desire (hence: UASF is just any random node throwing a comment)

again. its about just signalling by any random implementation throwing a comment.

the real end user ability to actually move funds to segwit keys and disarm themselves will come later. weeks/month after 'activation'
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/




by thinking its just core vs BU. shows your lack of understanding of BITCOIN NETWORK

things you dont realise.
many people have a bitcoin-core node but have set the consensus.h much higher than 1mb. they just dont advertise it to avoid DDoS by your clan
many people running bitcoin-core are not actually advocating for segwit.

sgwit is not a yes or no. the activation is meaningless in relation to the "fixes"
the activation just changes who's ontop as a seeder(upstream filter) and who's a leacher(downstream cesspit, not full node) while actually opening up more attack vectors.

the end user 'benefit' / functionality gesture of segwit is about the keypair utility, but even this does not 'fix' things at a whole network level. it only affects those who voluntarily disarm themselves
if you think that the 46m outputs of native keys will all happily be segwit outputs magically without causing issues .. then please run some scenarios

segwit is not really about LN. (its just 'sold' as needed as one of many last ditch plea's to get their way)
anyone at any time can set up a multisig and then have many ways to communicate to another person to agree on who owes who what

ive been doing it for a couple years. even escrows have been doing it for a couple years.

my fear of LN is more about who controls the DNS seed as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.
my fear of LN is more about who controls hubs and how blackmail and CSV(real world chargeback) as i can see a few attack vectors/control issues with it.

yes LN has a place in the bitcoin eco system as a voluntary side service for the niche users that need it (day traders/gamblers/faucets) but should not be treated as the end goal of bitcoin solutions because even LN has limits

UASF is just any random node throwing a comment into the useragent but still waiting for weeks after 'activation' to actually get an implementation that does anything more than the tier network.

where as using the implementations that have dynamics actually start allowing blocks over1mb to be built without needing to be spoonfed yet another release download.
where everyone thats part of the network are all on the same level playing field of a peer network, not tier network

(understand the difference between peer and tier)
 learn the consequences of the tier network, the dilution of full nodes that are not equally syncable to each other, where the downstream cesspit of prunned, stripped, nodes that cant sync and become RELIANT on upstream nodes.
think about it (using the bitcoin network hat, not the blockstream defender hat)

peer networks is where people dont need to move funds to new keypairs and everyone can benefit from real extra space even using native keys and everyone is equal full node.

lauda the activation of segwit itself is meaningless..
if segwit is so 'compatible' then why even need deadlines, threats. bribes ans blackmails.. they could just turn it on right now, right.. because 'its fully compatible' -as they say

but segwit activation does not give the bitcoin network any positives..

what it does do. is for the people who have a segwit node (under100%) who THEN...
wait around for weeks.. and then later download yet another spoon fed implementation just to get the real segwit wallet functionality
and then. of those that download they future release voluntarily move funds to segwit keypairs WEEKS - MONTHS after activation(even lower amount of people).. disarm themselves from performing quadratics, malleation, etc.

but this is where your not comprehending BITCOIN as a whole network.

- does it eradicate malleability (emphasis: for the network).. no
- does it eradicate quadratics (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse (4ktxsigop becomes 16ktxsigops)
- does it ensure all full nodes are full nodes (emphasis: for the network).. no, infact it makes things worse

you live in the dream world of an only blockstream/DCG existance, you can only see the world from the point of view where only blockstream/DCG software is rnning

forget about defending blockstream/DCG,
when you come to this forum.. try real hard to look in the mirror and ask yourself what hat your wearing.. and if the answer is the blockstream/DCG defense cap.. then dont reply to any posts.

stop defending them as kings of the utopian castle. and realise that bitcoin is beyond your kings.

anyway.
back to the question at hand.
would you blame and call ATI an attacker for using openCL if a year after GPU mining started gmax found an issue in gmaxes code that caused gmaxes code to not be as 'compatible' and as he promised

try to learn about bitcoin. because you have subtly omitted you have wasted the last year not learning. but do try to learn about bitcoin beyond a 2 paragraph blockstream/DCG script. and then reply using the cap of bitcoin network understanding

you do realise bitcoin will and should be around for centuries but blockstream/DCG wont be. so vesting your entire mindset around defending blockstream/DCG is a temporary thing that wont last and you will regret it later once their experiment is over and they have moved on to hyperledger