?? blockstream devs have no control ??

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
luke JR.. oh look blockstream (p.s just a couple months ago it was gmax)

hmm who moderates the mailing list
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/bitcoin-dev-moderation
ozlabs... i wonder... oh look rusty russel

so thats LJR and RR of blockstream employment.
so whats next. hmm
oh the technical discussion category on this forum
oh look gmaxwell

so thats LJR,  RR and GM of blockstream employment.

---

separate matter..

---

have you then seen the segwit activation proposals
bip9, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, do UASF

UASF, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, dont give up, push harder until the end of 2018

seems blockstream can control what happens. and can only take no for an answer when its them saying no

to save repeating myself segwit is not the 'solution' its the bait for future debate to push an agenda.

bcoin -> purse

Coindesk =DCG
purse.. guess what
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse = DCG

jonald_fyookball

miners AND nodes have a symbiotic relationship. in satoshi's day it was [siamese twins joined at the hip]. mining and being the node were the same single joined entity.
now its separate[un conjoined twins] it doesnt mean only miners[one twin] get the vote or only nodes get the vote[one twin].. they both[as siblings] have equal power and should learn to share the power not fight for it.

blockstream INTENTIONALLY ignored nodes[twin A] and gave pools[twin B] the vote. but now that [twin B] is refusing to eat what daddy blockstream wants to feed them. blockstream is the one having the angry tantrum blaming the [twin B] pools.
even as much as to now have daddy blockstream tell twinA to beat up and kneecap twinB

blockstream should have prepared a proper healthy [food] solution that both nodes and pools [both twins] can happily accept. or if not happy blockstream should not try forcing it down their throats, but go back to the kitchen and prepare a different healthier meal

it does have a problem.
by not being allowed to scale. (im not talking about the baited one-time half gesture segwit)
we should have had real scaling changed years ago
scaling which grows naturally over time(not stupid gigabytes by midnight, but instead natural node capable and managed by nodes scaling over time(not devs, not pools))

thats  a close mind statement to make
like computers were never designed for call of duty or video calls 20 years ago, but now its natural and no big deal
let me guess, you would love to go back 20 years and tell skype, twitch, youtube, google, to never get into the computer industry because
online gaming and video content was never designed to work on a computer. i can hear you now "just dont bother"

your mindset seems to be either 0 to 1billion in one night else dont bother.
you fail to realise that natural growth over say 3 decades where nodes are allowed to set limits that change over time, CAN scale..
just not gigabytes by midnight, but instead slow natural capable increments over months-years


HALTing onchain growth wont solve issues either
whats next, shoot childrens feet or break their knee caps at 8months old out of fear that they may run infront of a car should they slowly learn to walk?
how about slowly teach them to walk and naturally ensure they check for risks, and learn when its safe to cross a road... kneecapping them is not the answer
i bet you would love a world of locking children into wheelchairs where a parent(hub) has control of risk by refusing movement(not signing) or controling it(setting the rules/routing costs/participants).
blocksize alone is not the solution. especially if devs are baiting the blocksize with stupid methods.
EG
v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops 20k maxTXsigops 4k 1mb baseblocklimit
v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops 80k maxTXsigops 16k (1mb baseblocklimit - 3mb arbitrary space if people opt-in)
that there alone is the devs letting more native quadratic spam continue.. and infact get worse. they are literally causing the problem to try and say making bigger blocks 'just doesnt work' .. the devs are baiting the narrative yet not doing a proper job of solving the issue

you can literally hear the future echo's from their corporate chambers ripple back through time
"we the king overlord devs gave you 4mb[empty halfbaked gesture] weight, but still blocks are being filled by 5 insanely spammy tx's that now take 8minutes to validate instead of 10 seconds"

they are baiting the community, not solving the problem
their solution:
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k
knowing not everyone moves to segwit keypairs to use the 'weight'- their echo chamber script "see people dont want more tx's, the 4mb isnt even being used"
knowing corps making a point will spam baseblock - their echo chamber script "see validation times have got worse"

real solution
1mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 20k, maxTXsigops 2k
2mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 40k, maxTXsigops 1k
4mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 500
again not
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k

real solutions reduce spammy validations times and allow more lean tx's over time. blockstream devs bait does the opposite

blah blah blah 2011-2013
less than 10 pools and al using just 2 manufacturers of hardware
ATI and GeForce
over 50 % was in america

now over 20 pools
more than 2 manufacturers of hardware
less than 50% in china (yep i said it)(go check out the stats of the so called "chinese")

but did we ever blame ATI for openCL
did we accuse ati for attacking bitcoin

PBoC corrupt??
wait.. was it chinese banks that made people homeless in 2008
was it chinese banks that bailed out the rich
yes governments are corrupt and banks are.. but thinking china is worse than america lol thats a laugh

i do love the whole reddit scripts of fox new's "bomb them bomb them bomb them".. but can you shows your REAL sources

they are not dictating anything

blockstream decided pool only vote.

if blockstream cant accept the result of a pool only vote. you dont nuke the objectors, you either accept the no vote or you try again with full community..

if the full community say no. then you give up.

EG
other implementations have not set deadlines or threatened they just plodded along for 2 years.
they accept whatver consensus decide.

blockstream need to man up and do the same.
full consensus vote OR redo segwit properly and include the extra's the community are asking for
non of this 2merkle tier network control with mining nuke bullcrap

litecoin pump and dump..
who cares.

its temporary price drama.
plus

it was caused by twitter..
not asics or china or asicboost.

asics and asicboost has done nothing in the last 2 years
bu, classic, xt, and a dozen other implementations has dont nothing in the last 2 years

reddit and twitter "rumours" have been the attack, twisted as a victim card being waved at a situation that has never played out

are you ignoring this

temporary price drama is meaningless..
PoW nuking based on temporary price speculation and rumour...illogical

random shaolin tweet of speculation and no proof.
temporary price drama

thejaytiesto and the usual blockstream party now wants to bomb china..

lol still laughing

2 year old hardware
and everyone screaming "PoW designed to attack segwit"

logic shows 6month old software and 1 month old flaw found = software not as 'soft' compatible as first thought.

time now to just do a proper node CONSENSUS and get the other features in during the opportunity.. for a 1merkle segwit+dynamics and lowered maxtxsigops limit and other efficiencies (in short: do it properly!!)


otherwise all we are doing is just wasting another year where by blockstream wont take no for an answer and will just delay crap until late 2018 just to ONLY GET flawed 2merkle segwit in(flawed version needing a tier network)

http://www.uasf.co/

lol you do know the S9 and asic boost were created before segwit right..

so did they make a time machine?

lol OP's proof
.. a tweet starting "i heard"...

hmm wheres the salt

asics have been around for 2 years
asic boost as been around for 2 years

segwit code 6 months
gmax found flaw in segwit codes incompatibility 1 month

drama today is not caused by actions of asics. but speculation.

asic manufacturers did not make a time machine to make a segwit nuke
segwit just wasnt made 'soft enough' to not cause issues.
and gmax just a month ago found an issue where segwit is noft soft enough to work with 2year old hardware and efficiency technique.

solution
fix segwit to be even softer.
or
fix segwit to actually be implemented as a proper node CONSENSUS along with other community required features(dynamics, lowered max txsigops), thus only need 1merkle and get other needed features in. and finally get the community what it wants

stupid part is even with lots of pools abstaining objecting(70%) the fingers are being pointed at 16% and even blaming temporary price drama on that pool even when the pool has not done anything different for the last 2 years

quantus

the funny thing is
you ask a question

i give you an answer thats actually has the link to what you asked..

here i quote the link itself
meaning its an oppertunity core could have used to do a proper job seeing as they are now including full nodes


meaning if if only hit 80% the "might take upto 13 weeks to complete an activation period" will be longer than 13 weeks. meaning issues.

which i then proved with

but hey if all you do is want to copy and paste "shill".. then maybe you need to check your glasses if you dont like the answers rather than realise that blockstream cant take no for an answer. or realise that blockstream are wasting YEARS (upto late 2018) just to do half a job that not everyone likes even when that oppertunity could have been used better

---

P.S the blocking of certain blocks after activation of segwit (either bip9 or uasf) is not about just 'empty block guys or fake tx guys.
its about any pools that have said no to segwit.

meaning blockstream are doing all they can to get their 2merkle half assed version of segwit in to create their tier network.
rather than using the opportunity to get a 1merkle segwit with dynamic blocks and other features that can only be done by a node upgrade.

but its all been wordplayed by saying "economic nodes" and "user activated soft" even though it is about nodes needing to upgrade which in reality and no wordplay is hard consensus

..
(soft=pools only)
consensus = majority accepted
contentious/controversial no clear majority

(hard=nodes and pools)
consensus = majority accepted
contentious/controversial no clear majority

meaning UASF (without word play) is actually a hard consensus (not hard contentious/controversial).

asic s9 chip design 2015
asicboost theory 2015
both in production 2015
public released spring 2016

segwit 2merkle envisioned december 2015
in production spring 2016
public release october 2016

feb-march 2017 gmax finds flaw in 2merkle soft segwit.
cant redesign 2merkle segwit.
april 2017 gmax call asics a attack that knew about segwit and was designed specifically to stop segwit

..
logic fail (unless time travel is possible)

blockstream - 100% no
core - 95% no (theres only a couple people who defy the gmax whip, but you dont hear them speak much)

core have become too dependant on gmax CTO and founder of blockstream

evidence: if core was 'independent' there would be no:
'its not core its an altcoin'
'they just took core code and tweaked it so REKT them as an altcoin'

there would be
'anyone can independently tweak core code'

if blockstream as a DNS seed maintainer set themselves up as just a 'spoke' 'routed hop' between hubs can make 1penny from 7million users a day each

they can repay their $70million VC DEBT in 3 years. especially seeing as how blockstream are VC partnered with coinbase and bitpay anyway
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
-bitpay
-blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
-coinbase

so DCG get the blockstream debt paid and it also helps DCG get repaid by coinbase and bitpay. all due to the corporate partnership

??
rusty russell of blockstream employment
https://blockstream.com/team/rusty-russell/

is not making lightning network software??

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/graphs/contributors

its where non mining, but proper full network validation nodes upgrade to really enforce proper consensus. but....
(here is the twist and betrayal)
while this opportunity should be used to have features properly implemented like dynamic block and 1merkle segwit(and other things)..
what is only being forced into the network is the soft 2merkle segwit changes and nothing else.

stupid thing is
if bip9 doesnt get the 95%

if UASF doesnt get the 80%

blockstream wont give up.
they will waste another year

http://www.uasf.co/

purely to try getting segwit activated and nothing else.(facepalm)

to correct quickseller and to get around lauda's word twisting mantra:
Greg Maxwell on the other hand stands to clear the $70m+ VC DEBT easily if Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer, regardless of the damage done to Bitcoin as a result of this.