and on same day litecoin tanked



and on same day Vert tanked 20% ltc rose 20%

its just tennis...

and all your doing is looking at th ball (the latest coin that rises) and ignoring the one without the ball (the latest coin that drops) and then scream it rose because segwit.
but when it drops. you will scream the other coin rises "because segwit good."

are you next going to offer a daily report. find which coin rose and scream "its segwit"

temporary price drama is meaningless. especially in the stupidly twisted context you use.

lol
you have no clue.

next you will be telling me that the chinese do infact have a time machine went back and made hardware purely to attack software.

wake up to logic.
hardware came first,
new software came second
new software is not getting the appreciation
new software not active
new software has a flaw

you cant blame old hardware

TL:DR
how can summer 2015 hardware be exploiting autumn 2016 released software

---

secondly blockstream admit the going soft anyone canspend route was a backdoor to avoid node consensus

thirdly
actually you will find it is an anyonecanspend. which is why if segwit activates they have to PREVENT old nodes seeing unconfirmed segwit tx's and also prevent old nodes from mining blocks ontop of segwit,
and why the segwit keypair wallet is not active in any of the 0.13.X 0.14.x
and why even when segwit is activated the segwit keypair wallet wont be available instantly because they need to ensure the old nods are cut off from manipulating unconfirmed tx's by ensuring the network is tiered with segwit at the top.

atleast try to learn the finer details and stop just pushing the utopian 30 second sales pitch

the guys that say its 1000x too expensive.
are the ones with only $1000 to their name wished they bought at $1 so they would later be millionares when they scream for it to be worth 1000x more after buying.

the guys that say bitcoin should be 500,000 are the ones that bought at probably $500 and are screaming for it to be worth $500k to then be millionaires when buying only 2btc.

i have seen this in the past.

many peoples 'future price' valuations are usually linked to what they hold or wished they held. and then calculated to a future profit of $1mill

EG someone screaming bitcoin should be $33k each probably only has 30btc
i dont know where this mindset came from but many people i speak to have this "i wanna be a fiat millionaire" mindset.
not realising by the time they become fiat millionaires. hyper inflation will only by them a loaf of bread with it.

i do laugh at those that only care about a future FIAT value while pretending "banks are bad, governments are bad"

lauda, your showing little to no understanding of bitcoin but high understanding to blockstreams control. i wonder why.

asicboost is no secret. in 2015 it was an efficiency boost. hardware and software was developed.
MONTHS LATER blockstream decided "wait we could implement segwit using the anyonecanspend backdoor exploit" thinking blockstream can have a easy life adding in code without node veto and thinking buying the pools a free lunch gets them segwit by christmas 2016..
so a year after asic hardware is designed. sgwit code is ready for testnet.
but the testnet tests are not thorough enough.
months later segwit gets a public release and starts having a deadline.
so thats a year of coding.. blockstream failed to realise their 2merkle backdoor version wouldnt be compatible with efficient hardware software.
they released the code.. 5 months of having the release blockstream had no clue their backdoor (going soft) would have issues.

then last month gmax hit the wall by realising that all the year and a half of trying to bypass node consensus by going soft would never have worked out right anyway.

so now gmax is having a temper tantrum and blaming pools.

---

please do something before replying to defend blockstream.
clear your mind of blockstream.. relax, take off the defender hat. and wear the logical thinking cap.

---

and imagine this.
its 2011 ATI have this snazzy feature that Geforce doesnt. is called openCL. it gives ATI an advantage.
now imagine 2012 some new bitcoin feature was needed, it was hoped to use some backdoor to implement it to not need full node consensus.
you have done lots of tests using Geforce and ATI non-openCL hardware.
near 2013 you realise your backdoor attempts hit a wall because openCL affects it.
do you
A. tell the world ATI is attacking bitcoin because of openCL
B. be honest and tell the world the node consensus bypass backdoor would never have worked as expected but you only just found the problem
C. do B but then raise your hands and say ok community, lets node consensus a new cleaner recoded version and this time lets include dynamics and other proper fixes.
D. do A and double down threatening ATI and insinuating people should hate ATI with racial rhetoric while you try killing off anyone thats using openCL

yp it does not need 400 contributor votes to add a line of code. it just need the maintainer and a couple main guys to acknowledge it.

i know for sure that the devs dont read every single line of code. because i have seen many cases where the main regular contributors end up asking each other about lines X even afters its in a release candidate.

for instance gmax amended a few of the tx fee things which led to the fee rise happen more easily, but question them about it and they cant remember how or what happened or by who

they just blindly trusted that gmax coded something and let it pass.
hense why i think a few of them are now blaming pools. when it was actually core code caused simply because not everyone knows the whole code, and each person just concentrates on a certain area.

that was march 2016.. before segwit or LN realy gained any traction at code level.. things have moved on from then(obviously)
i know in last 6 months they were thinking of segwit keys being 3. and the LN guys wanting BC: at the front to help them out for their altcoin inter-playability..

in short, by going soft. blockstream nodes need to strip away the segwit witnesses to make the block appear valid to old nodes downstream. so need to completely separate the signature away.. thus needing 2 merkles to keep them linked without being linked..just t be able to cut the witness away..

however if everyone was upgrading by going hard, then there is no need to have to play the strip data down to meet old block game of a tier network, because everyone would be on the same playing field.

so the witness can just be appended to a tx and not need a second merkle thus the base block limit becomes irrelevant and the 4mb weight because the new block limit with no more 1mb (old native node rule)

i thought they were suppose to begin 3.. meaning accounting for the extended LN addressing. it would be BC3 not BC1

the BC part of the address is all because rusty russel wants BC at the front so that address formats for LN can do things like offchain swaps with other altcoins easier, where i feel that litecoin will have LC3 for instance...

---

and yea years ago when i seen Luke want tonal, i facepalmed that

yep
some people use the term 'legacy' which also refers to standard/current/old keys
but legacy is more about inheritance after death..(real world definition... not bitcoin buzzword definition)

i prefer using native (like real word definition: the natives [indians] who existed prior to the invasions of newcomers)

as for the hard vs soft..

a 1 merkle hard is cleaner than a 2 merkle soft. for things like no need for the tier network of upstream filters because all implementations would need to upgrade and thus no need to 'strip' blocksor need of a 2 merkle to allow stripping.
that way the 4mb weight does become the 4mb base. for everyone to take advantage of native or segwit keypair

but the txsigoplimit still needs to be kept down for the sake of native key abusers

fully agree with CK. he beat me to that..
blocking native keys .. i facepalmed when i read that from anonymoustroll420
lol

and if anonymoustroll420 thinks segwit can just 'convert' everyones funds over to segwit with a magic wand.. well another facepalm is needed

its far far easier to just have txsigop limit at sat well under 4000 forever.. none of this txsigops upscaling with blocksize crap that actually makes quadratic spamming worse not better

but its not..

only those people who use segwit keys are disarmed from quadratic spamming . but native key users are not.
thus spammers can just stick to native keys and spam the base block ..

thats why keeping a tight grip on txsigop limits is still needed as a ultimate solution FOR EVERYONE native or segwit key users

your maths on timings are not quite right.
EG

based on QUADRATICS (sigops not bytes)
a 4k sigops ~10 seconds
meaning 5 tx's to hit the blocksigop limit= 50seconds validation time

a 16k sigops under 8 minutes
meaning 5 tx's to hit the blocksigop limit= 32minutes validation time.
yep even i facepalmed that.

however if all implementations just allowed 2k sigops no matter what the size was.
2k= ~0.1 second.

so say the blocksigop limit was 20k(1mb) it would take 20tx,s not 5tx's. and the time would be under 2 seconds
so say the blocksigop limit was 80k(4mb) it would take 80tx,s not 5tx's. and the time would be under 8 seconds

which is much better than 32 minutes that core have imposed.

**BU & CORE **/blob/release/src/consensus/consensus.h

**BU & CORE **/blob/release/src/policy/policy.h

by doing the blocksize/50/5 maths for MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS.. ends up as

core v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=4000 1mb base
core v0.14 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=16000 (1mb base, 4 weight) meaning 16kops, even when native keys are still locked to the 1mb limit

BitUnlim v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=4000 1mb base
BitUnlim v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=16000 4mb base (still spammy but atleast the base block is bigger.)

this is done because core have already proclaimed the limit..

---

however.

bitcoin unlimited did add a little extra nugget that core did not.. they would prevent certain tx's getting relayed that could become quadratically spammy
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/blob/release/src/policy/policy.h

---

i think that ALL implementations 'should' just do
MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50; //this adjusts to allow more tx's as the blocksize increases
MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=2000; //this never changes. no matter what the blocksize becomes.


making sure that tx's never get a chance to be quadratically spammy, but allows more leaner/cleaner tx's in as blocksizes grow

nope.
i actually went to the document where Jiang Zhuoer himself was writing.

the thing i do is if i see something.. i find the source. if someone says the source is a news article. i then look at a news article and find that news articles source. and i go right back to the real source.

sometimes these things are circle jerks where one "news" site is just quoting another news site which has quoted a reddit post from someone not involved, who then quotes another news site which has quoted another non-involved person.. and i just facepalm it.

but hey. maybe thats because my concentration span can last longer than 2 paragraphs and i dont just take things on face value, nor 'trust' something because 'it must be backed because 100+ people acknowledge it.

for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks'
for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks' and where those 100 people have read every single line of code.

for instance. there is a guy that put a pull request to mention gitian in a document to get himself named as 'one of the 100' contributors. but i know for sure he has not read every single line of code.. care to guess who im talking about, or am i being too subtle?

TF are not a problem or a concern today. pools dont need them.

so i see no reason at all to be pushing for 600% 'bonus' growth in under a year
EG no need for
year   block    txcap     fee total
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   01mb   2200      $1320.00(60c/tx)

by actually growing the blockspace we can increase bitcoins utility.
(i am not talking about gigabytes by midnight, im talking natural growth within capability of nodes over time. (productive slow natural growth)

this will allow instead of 2200 TF payers paying 6x this year as they did last year. but
4400 paying the same this year as last year, yet giving pools double the bonus.

EG
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   02mb   4400      $440.00(10c/tx)
2018   03mb   6600      $660.00(10c/tx)
2019   04mb   8800      $880.00(10c/tx)
..
2084   69mb   151800   $15,180.00(10c/tx)

remember tech will be very different in decades and the block reward dozen 100% disappear for a century. so the need for fee's is not essential now.
the flip between reward(income):fee(bonus).. to reward(bonus):fee(income) wont happen in the next couple years. but sometime between a couple DECADES to a century.

+- voting just ends up with the guys with multiple accounts and people of particular teams all chipping in to self gratify and pretend it means they are correct.

it then leads away from people actually reading the content and then going out to research themselves to find the truth. but instead people becoming lazy thinking "it must be true he has +50"

for instance, on facebook. when you see the news feeds people think its real that celebrity X has died, simply because the article has over 1mill shares.
leading to another 1mill posts of condolences.. meanwhile celebrity X is alive.

where as posts highlighting celebrity X being alive, get little to no response

not really.

more so beat with a stick until people give in

old theory

based on scare stories of only a couple nodes in a couple countries.

diversity over comes this
nodes in 90 countries so far
nodes spread across 1000 ISPs/services

even the pools which some non-researching racists call chinese, are actually scattered across many countries

http://www.uasf.co/

in short, if bip9 dosnt get 95%, if UASF doesnt help to get segwit activated. they will ignore the fact that majority is not reached. and just try again wasting another year trying.

on thing the devs wont do before 2019 is to take a step back and listen to the community and actually do a proper consensus that includes more features to make the community happy