in my area, i can buy food pay bills and live happily on bitcoin..
.. oh wait. now i remember i been in bitcoin since 2012 and over the time I spoke to my local stores and hlped them out.

there are a few towns around the world that do have many bitcoin accepting retailers. everything from clothes, electronics, meals and snacks. etc
.. but these are because people helped the retailers set it up. either by a bitcoin being a employee of the retailer or a regular customer in most cases

---

unless you have many people in your town that are talking to merchants for you.. if you want something. you are going to have to ask for it yourself.
again bitcoin is just code. no legs, no arms.

it cannot get on a plane and come to your town. its something you have to do.

too many people sit their waiting for magic.
and they wait
and they wait
and they ask
"Even now in 2017, why is bitcoin *still* not accepted as a major currency?Doesn't make any sense TBH. We should've seen it starting to replace conventional currencies by now."

and they dont seem to understand that their local shop doesnt know that you want bitcoin accepted in their store because you never helped them to be able to accept it.

my advice:
do not sit there waiting for magic.

instead find out if there are other bitcoiners in your area and arrange a meetup at a bar/cafe to discus bitcoin. find out the main retailers in your area that all of you use (most popular retailers to actually benefit from accepting bitcoin due to regular customers) and then out of your group find out the most confident person who can help set things up and go to the retailer and help them.

the best successes are not to speak to managers of branches of national/international retailers as they are just glorified supervisors with no actual local power to make changes.. instead look for the non franchised independant stores where the manager does have decision power over payment methods

your still not understanding bitcoin.
your looking at things too two-dimensionally.

users are not slaves to pools. just taking what pools hand out. users want to have a say in what is created. and thus they become nodes.
they then via majority consensus and rejecting blocks they dont like, cause pools to form a single chain (stack of bank notes) that the majority accept and are happy to use as currency.

those that object to the majority. can either stay with the network. objecting (orphaning what they get) and being left unsynced because they choose not to keep any blocks.
or
give in to majority and decide to match the majority of nodes choice and use the currency.
or
ban all communications with the ugly nodes and pools to avoid the orphan drama. and find a pool that will make the blocks they prefer and start their own altcoin.

yea there are some users that set themselves up as wallet services for random users that dont care much about the big decisions, and those uncaring users can just use the popular currency via third parties because they trust the third party shares their same basic desire to not need to run a node themselves.
but others want a more active role so become nodes to be part of consensus. knowing the more people voting for a certain thing the less chance some strange lobbied group cant just come in and vote to create something different and force a change.

and thats where majority consensus comes in..
securing bitcoin from random changes and only changing if there is majority consent of the community.

bitcoin has no arms. no legs and no voice.

bitcoin will not be accpted in your local town store if you simply sit on yor hands and hop bitcoin somehow drops in and talks to your local stores manager.

bitcoin only grows as a real world currency if those that want it in their local stores, actually themselves go into their local stores and help the local stores be bitcoin acceptable.

this means YOU (anyone reading this that wants their local store to accept bitcoin)

your not seeing the bigger picture..

you think because pools can make their blocks that they dont need nodes.. well lets word it this way

you design a new bank note. you include all the security features.. but then you find that although you have a huge stack of bank notes.. no one likes them. they would prefer purple bank notes.. not green.

you could keep making green bank notes and thinking your making money..  but if no one is accepting them... your wasting your time. you cant spend them anywhere

now you start to realise about community consensus. if they dont like your blocks. your wasting your time making them.

what people forget is.. making 2 different chains/coins. may not actually happen.


likely but not guaranteed.

if a majority goes one way. the minority then have many struggles.
EG
will exchanges accept it. will scrpt kiddies do replay attacks by copy/pasting unconfirms from one side to the other to cause disruption.
will spammers intentionally bloat a minority so that along with having less haspower (delayed blocks) the minority coin then has many more tx's it has to deal with causing delays.
plus numerous other attacks on the minority.

also. the whole 'naming it BTU' has ben exaggerated too.

in a CONSENSUS event the majority is then BTC and the minority is named something else.
thus if dynamic blocks got consensus majority. segwit, the minority becomes SWCoin.
and the majority is simply named bitcoin.

it is already known that all the dynamic proposals wont do anything controversial. even when segwit devotee's have begged and pleaded them to split away.

in the couple years of these non-segwit teams running on the main net. they have not done a controversial split, not gave any timescales or demands to do one either. they want consensus. and if they dont gt it. then that to is still consensus of not wanting it. thus they actually are following bitcoins ethos for change. by adhering to consensus by not rocking the boat.

once you look passed the scripted rhetoric of controversial splits. you soon learn it is core demanding it and core with all the banning/orphaning tools to cause it.

but core have to be on the losing side(minority) to trigger it.

so dont be fooled into thinking 2 chains is a guarantee. the dynamic node users may just leave their settings at 1mb and just be second tier downstream nodes of the same network as segwit. meaning no split.

lol.
you do know why something deemed "backward compatible" is not simply activated instantly.
after all if really backward compatible. its just as valid now as ever right... (but read the small print and you see the holes)

you do know even when activated core wont have a walet enabled release for people straight away...

you do know why segwit needs to be upstream filters and actively ban other non-segwit nodes from being upstream. this includes banning pools and their non segwit blocks from being added on after.

you do know why segwit will not relay segwit unconfirmed tx's to non-segwit nodes.

not only that but the sigop quadratic spamming is not solved due to it not stopping native tx's
the malleability is not solved because it does not stop native tx's

the tx count wont reach expectations because it does not stop native tx's

once you look passed the scripted half promises. and look at how it works.. you see the promises are empty.
you also start to see new attack methods aswell as the old ones that still exist.

also.
litecoin transactions have been fully running and used for 6 years. all tested by thousands of people..
.. but introduce them onto bitcoins mainnet. no one knows what will happen.

and segwit transactions are the same 'many tests and been running on alternative networks for x month' but never on bitcoins mainnet..

(some attacks have been highlighted. even i highlighted the main one last year, which led to the whole ordeal of not releasing the segwit key wallet until way after activation. but even then there are still attack vectors that can and will happen with segwit tx's and native nodes after activation).
hint: though segwit nodes mess with ban lists and not auto relaying unconfirms to native nodes.. some script kiddie can manually copy the segwit mempool and push segwit unconfirms into their native nodes mempool and have a nice play around.

i see you have read the failed script.
i dare you to actually explain the fix lol

hint: you have to explain how it cannot be countermanded or used as a new attack method itself

... i expect silence or lack of knowledge and just another paste of a salespitch of empty promise

https://bitcoinec.info/

i still think that non-pool nodes should really utilise policy.H more..

EG Consensus.h node hardwarelimit = something set by the nodes performing its own speed test of what it is physically capable of
for example 8mb
 then policy.h is the PREFERED size the network should work with.
EG 1mb today and maybe 2mb on activation day.

whereby pools see all the policy.h (prefered) in the node useragents.
and pools then
set their own policy.h just below what the majority of nodes prefer.
EG 0.999 today and 1.000250 day of activation. and pools then test the water of orphan risk and other unforseen bugs and increment up to 1.999 before the 'majority/minority' preferences kick in
thus a minority would accept the block but have their policy.h altered by warning system

bitcoinEC.. lets just see

hmm
i wonder..
yep another DCG portfolio

oh look bitcoinec maintained by blocktracker.... https://keybase.io/blocktracker/ oh Barry silbert.. of DCG sems to be a follower (edit: now not)
let me guess lauda is ok with..
core (->blockstream ->DCG)
KNots? (luke JR->blockstream ->DCG)
bitcoinEC(silbert->DCG)

i find it funny how lauda shouts loudly in favour of all these DCG portfolio corporations/teams. yet hasnt read the lines of code yet of any implementation

though bitcoinEC is a 'in concept' a step in the right direction wise to move bitcoin forward. by having dynamics. im shocked at the ones jumping in advocating it without peer reviewing first

bitcoin needs to remain decentralised. multiple pools. and also the NODES killing off blocks it doesnt like. that way the pools are not just reliant on each other but the nodes too.

if we start going down the rabbit hole of one codebase of nodes
then
one pool

then we might aswell just be using fiat.

bitcoin is different and revolutionary due to diversity where there is not nor should not be any point of failure or control.
EG if one pool drops off the other pools continue.
if one codebase has a bug the others continue while the issues are being sorted by those affected.

consensus is the mechanism that self regulates the network by majority consent .
as long as the majority is not a sybil/shill corporate party, all running the exact same thing(making bitcoin weaker)..
but instead diverse independent consensus. then bitcoins revolution can continue. and bitcoin becomes stronger.

core wanting to split the network or baiting and switching to falsely state all non-core will do it. where by what core have left is their software and using BTCC & slush (their DCG partners) as pools. is centralisation..

it wont matter how good or bad the code is.. by being all part of the DCG portfolio. bitcoin loses its ethos of being revolutionary and will just turn into something like paypal/banking system.

bitcoin should rise above the greed of the banking sector corporate control and stick with consensus by independent diverse community.

oh your talking about barry silbert and adam back..

knowing any dynamic proposition isnt going to activate unless majority..

leaving core to even become dynamic too or be the ones banning nodes to keep their minority alive.. your statement should also read as

"Certainly, I don't mind if someone decides to give me SWcoins for free. Whatever their price may be after the fork I'll sell them and increase my BTC stash."

CORE gave pools the vote.. blame core for trying to skip the safe steps of real consensus.
if nodes voted first. to then give pools confidence of what pools producing would get accepted. then pools would have flagged desire.

but core new it couldnt reach its "fix" promises. pools and node users seen that cores promises were empty half gestures.
thus no point changing to something of a complete rewrite, which requiring 100% movement of funds to new tx styles just to even attempt to disarm the issues that were 'promised'.. nowing that 100% would never be achieved was yet another failure by core.

dont blame the pools. it was core that decided to sidestep the community.. the pools didnt do anything. (and thats cores problem)

BU has done nothing new that has not already been proposed 2 years ago.
no deadlines. no agenda's no ban hammering of blocks or nodes.
no intention of splitting the network. they want one single network of majority where many diverse nodes collectively continue running on the network.

its actually blockstream(core) that have been vocal about causing splits and such.. but just baited the stories like they are the victims. not the perpetrators

the drama recently is from these guys
http://dcg.co/portfolio/  - DCG is owned by barry silbert.

and the corps that received VC funding are in debt and barry wants his money back.. soooooon. here is how much he threw at them
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

when the price drops.. dont panic.

treat it as a discount day to buy in cheap before it goes up again

core want only core to be the code running the network.. (centralist control)

other brands want to have a open network of many diverse brands working together utilising consensus and keeping bitcoin diverse and decentralised

so there is
bitcoin core-porate  
btcoreporate

and then other brands that want to keep the chain as a single mutual chain of open diversity which could be seen as
bitcoin united
btc unlimited (playing the childish games of making new words by removing a few letters)

im laughing at the article.. it actually debunks itself..


where does:
BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin, bitcoinj, bitcoinruby, btcd, ever suggest that they are stealing "core"
i have not seen any brand called core2.0... thus debunked..

bitcoin is an open project.. there have for years been many brands running on the network.
so where is the proof that other brands are stealing "CORE" brand.

core actually rewrote their entire codebase recently and the other brands have not followed that. thats cores problem. the other diverse brands have not followed core

so you cant even claim they are stealing code. even though the code is opensource and licenced to be allowed to be used.

so the "attempted theft of "core" is debunked.

and then separately if you think only core "own" bitcoin.. you are fooled by the notion, by which your then pulled into the corporate agenda of core wanting dominance and centralism

power grab?

here is the power grab
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am

names in link 2 look familiar to link 1??.. yep

they('collective of the digital Currency Exchange Industry') are just desperate

blockstream is in debt to a tune of $70m-$90m, the exchanges are in debt too

here is a lowdown of who they owe money to and how much
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

P.S barry silbert is DCG (owns coindesk amunst others and ties to blockstream(core)) and is getting really edgy about getting his returns. so he is pushing hard to cause drama
http://dcg.co/portfolio/

however the real bitcoin community (ignoring the corporation dictatorship) are not pushing for a split, they want real consensus and one single consensus chain without the dev overlords calling the shots. where nodes grow based on the mutual consent of the network majority of diverse codebases.

the community consensus has no deadlines and no overzealous ban hammer code to cause a controversial or bilateral split.
but the corporate tribe wanting dominance are the ones that have thrown the baby out the pram, and begging the community to split up..

and thats why what you say next is wrong


have you read the code. compare cores v0.12.. to core 0.14...... then compare cores 0.12 to classic, xt, or BU.. and ask yourself which is closer to the original..

you will see that cores 'segwit' is the altcoin, total block redesign, different merkle, different tx design. a total rewrite basically

try to learn about bitcoin. and spend less time with the propaganda scripts of wanting to get bitcoin in the sole hands of the corporatations funded by
DCG - http://dcg.co/portfolio/