barry silbert of DCG (ownership stake of blockstream, BTCC, coinbase, bitpay, etc) is looking forward to his investment returns from LN hubs.
oops did i just reveal why BTCC is the main/first pool supporting segwit(the phase 1 stage in LN requirements), and why blockstream are pushing hard to get segwit active to enable LN.. oops sorry for the spoilers

a government cannot control bitcoin.
thus they cant benefit from it.

people/citizens could use bitcoin.. but dont expect bitcoin to become china's "fiat"
also. bitcoin should not even try to let a government control it
also. bitcoin should not even try becoming fiat.
bitcoins utility is being an open option away from government/bank control

otherwise whats the point of bitcoin if it turns into governmentcoin2.0

you are not wrong

http://www.the-blockchain.com/2017/01/05/blockchain-group-hyperledger-expands-china/

shhhh
rule one of barry silbert investment company DCG
dont talk about bilderberg aka satoshi roundtable 2017

dont talk about blockstream. dont talk about coinbase dont talk about bitpay, dont talk about bitpayBTCC[/url] or the BTCC ceo's brother(charlie lee DoE at coinbase and creator of litecoin)

..
i now predict the usual troll storm incoming to defend blockstream and barry silbert aka bilderberg organisers

the china exploring blockchain is about hyperledger. not specifically bitcoin..
= non news day concerning bitcoin

the bitcoin ETF is just winklevii speculation/opinion

things would change if..

the big 12 exchanges.
and also the merchant tools (bitpay/coinbase) both started pushing for another currency.

EG the 300,000 merchants accepting bitcoin, started accepting another coin and not advertising bitcoin acceptance.
'value' in bitcoin would decline

and so it begins



the morocco project is not a "sun exchange" project, its just a google search he found.
for a guy living in africa, seems he is quoting a UK media source

Dangerz
yes countries are getting into solar.. thats not a doubt.
but it doesnt legitimize your business.

nor does your proposal explain why bitcoiners should get involved as you fail to explain(beyond the gimmick of your internal switcheroo pretend) how bitcoin would actually become part of africans daily lives.

it doesnt need to be expensive to 'get together' start local as a 'meetup'.
arrange to all meet at a cafe/bar a certain day/time each week or month.
usually you may only see 5-15 turn up. so no costs. its just a few guys siting in a cafe/bar drinking their own drinks

learn what local skills locals interested in bitcoin have. start discussing what local shops the majority all use, to se the most popular choices you all would want to see accept bitcoin and plan on what to do to help get local stores to accept bitcoin.

this may as simple as where a bitcoin buyer sets up a fiat bartab with the store. and then gives the store a QR code.. then any customer asking to pay with bitcoins can be shown the qr code. the shop worker just checks a phone browsers bookmarked link of a blockexplorer to see if funds arrive.. and then the store manager takes the cash amount out of the bartab.
(that has been found to be the easiest intro to offer to a business to try out bitcoin acceptance risk free)

usually good practice to ask the cafe/bar you intend to use regularly for meetups to try out showing qr code and checking blockexplorer when their customers ask to pay with bitcoin. it hones your confidence and experience of asking a business to accept bitcoin. while helping the bitcoin buyer have a regular bitcoin income. and getting your first local merchant to accept bitcoin.. (then let it grow from there)

as things grow and more turn up. say 15-50 find another venue that can cater to the amount if the cafe/bar cant cope. some have found they simply ask the bar what day is their slowest/lowest occupancy, meaning more room for bitcoiners if there are less random people there. and arrange the meetups for that day. thus not putting a strain on the bar.

if 50-100 want to turn up then set up an attendance fee of say 100th of the room hire
usually you can hire a room with capacity for 100 for under $100 for a couple hours($1 per attendee) and less for the rom hire/attendees ticket in developing countries. in short split the cost

once things start getting bigger and you want to invite international spokes people to attend. then make the attendance fee (ticket price) equate the cost of hiring the even larger venue for the day.

ill raise a point 5.

if having LN on bitcoin.. will people realise that their funds are locked into X week contracts with penalties for payment hopping and decide, next time they will avoid hops and instead choose hubs, which are cheaper.

making users end up all using the same hub to reduce the hop fee's. turning the hub into paypal 2.0 by being the middle counterparty signing everyone's payment.. for a fee(lower then paying multiple hop fee's).
adding to that. after broadcasting the settlement transaction. having CLTV on the confirmed settlement forcing the confirmed tx to not be spendable for a further 3-5 days to allow the hub manager 3-5 days to submit a CSV revoke code. thus making it feel even more like paypal. which in laymens: 3-5 day balance unavailable and chargebacks.

will people see the benefit of bitcoin?? when it in reality, it ends up feeling the exact same as paypal/failed fiat banking system?

ill raise a point 6.
with people locked into LN hubs.. how many people think /care about the full network, if they are no longer actually transacting daily on the mainnet.
how many full node users will decide they see no benefit of being a full node because all they ever use is the LN node.

will LN actually kill off the full node count when people dont need to use main net daily?

this bip process.. is not about submitting solid code..
its the process just to submit an idea of something. a concept

which usually is one that opposes cores idea.. hense why people need to submit opposing bips to counter cores own bips.

but to submit the idea (proposal/concept... not code) you have to be vetted by them atleast 4 times.(passing through gregs thumb atleast twice)

the question the tweet asks should trigger peoples thoughts.. i see problems in the statement. but if you ask the deeper question


if an exchange only plays with lets say 20btc(usually 20k-200k but lets keep it simple). and only has $18,000 to get a bitcoin price of $900 each..

the market cap of say 16,100,000 btc is based on the exchange rate.
but the problem..
the exchange is only playing with smaller amounts of bitcoin.. not the whole 16.1m
so this 20btc being traded and $18,000 fiat holding..

FALSELY makes people think the entire market is worth $14.5billion
when the reality is that there is not $14.5billion sitting in bank accounts to counter the bitcoins in circulation..

---

hopefully that should wake people up

and then
split it to 2 networks
now there are
20 btcA on an exchange and 20btcB on an exchange
with 16,100,000btcA cap, with 16,100,000btcB cap

again price of btc WAS $900
meaning only $18,000 was ever traded

yep only $18,000 exists in an exchange... but now a total of 40 coins are held on the exchange now

after a split
that $18,000 can go anyway

$9,000 btcA $9,000 btcB or
$8,000 btcA $10,000 btcB or (pick any ratio you like)

maths would still total $18k for 40 coins... which when PROJECTED to the market caps and combining the market caps. still total $14.5bill combined cap

so splitting the coin does not make the coins more valuable or increase the cap... until........

---

however..
if you create a new market page
no longer just btc<->$
or just btcA<->$   and   btcB<->$
but now
btcA<->$  and   btcB<->$  and  btcA<->btcB

no coins are withdrawn coins in this scenario
no more or less $ are deposited.

the exchange still holds 40 coins and $18,000
but now

5btcB <-> $
5btcB<-> $
and 15 btcA<-> 15 btcB

now lets concentrate on
5 btcB <-> $
5btcB<-> $
$9,000 btcA $9,000 btcB or
$8,000 btcA $10,000 btcB or (pick any ratio you like)

ill use $9,000 btcA $9,000 btcB
now ill emphasis there are still just 40 coins and $18,000 in the exchange.

but because only 5btcA are trading against $9000. that makes each btcA worth $1800 each
16.1 market cap of btcA now= $29billion
but because only 5btcB are trading against $9000. that makes each btcB worth $1800 each
16.1 market cap of btcB now= $29billion

combined market cap price of btcA+btcB now = $58billion..
yet on the exchange. before,during and after a split.. only $18,000 was ever held

...
think long and hard about how market manipulations and how the market cap.. is not true value. not even a good estimate of value and obsurdly over valued the market, based on the movements of just a few coins held actually on the market.. it will wake you up

review my post history vs your post history.

you troll.
i explain bitcoin
seems you need a new script.

you had a point right upto the "compete with visa"
that last 3 words is the nuclear bomb of the last 2 years drama.

many centralists say that by midnight of any given day bitcoin needs to beat visa. the only route is permissioned contracts looped through commercial hubs managing those contracts to keep costs low.

where as logical rational people see and know we do not have 900million users today. the visa debate is not a debate of today. its a slow and rational natural growth towards, which should be a long term 20-30year goal. not an overnight leap.

yet we have the centralists who want permissioned commercialised hub services (pretty much what visa/paypal do anyway, meaning no benefit) to be the solution because they shout out visa by midnight, now now now. while halting and hindering dynamic blocks because dynamic blocks wont scale to visa levels by midnight..

then we have the diverse dcentalised community wanting dynamic natural growth scaling where nodes decide what they can handle and grow at a natural pace nodes can handle. which allows slow, risk adverse scaling.. which means visa in the next 30 years.

logically we wont have visa overnight. and logically stopping natural dynamic scaling out of fears of overnight scaling are silly. but it just ends up as a fight between pushing for or against commercialised hubs.

satoshi roundtable 2017
majority blockstream and the corporate bankers who all love hyperledger

and now you start the rabbit hole.

to get a bip, to then be able to testnet,...is like this... (note proposal/idea.. not actual final code, just a proposal)

to get a bip you need to first discuss it on the IRC/forum (moderated by theymos/gmaxwell)

then you need to submit the idea to the bitcoin mailing list. and have people revet/discuss it.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/d9e890a8f27e46806238e298a346397871fd7e87/README.mediawiki

then you can go to github and end up seeing this
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/new/master

where you are then required to be vetted again.. to get it submitted(pulled)

and this is just the process to even have a "proposal" listed, not final code, not working model, just a dang proposal!!

.
its like having to sit down for an interview, a reinterview. and then asking a womens father for the womans hand in marriage, purely to be allowed to ask a woman for a date.!!
and then only allowed to go on a date (main testnet) if you promise to not pass third base

cores change from reactive fee estimates to average fee estimates has caused a rise in fee's subtly.

when proposing segwit they mentioned 'fee discount' as a bribe.
the issue is the discount does not return fee's back down to 2009-2014 levels. instead even the discount if activated today will just backdate the fee's by a couple months.. and then the fee average estimate will grow again.

inshort segwit fee bribe is a temporary gesture. not a long term and definitely not a permanent fix.

secondly core want to add extra bytes later on to tx's so that the fee per tx grows faster.

we need to concentrate on long term solutions of lean tx's and proper onchain scaling.. not the temporary gesture of segwit.

you do know that testnet is supposed to be used to break a chain and find bugs..

if testnet is being biasedly closed off and only used by nodes that have been vetted to not break.. then ofcourse people wont use the main testnet.
those using the main testnet are instead treating breaks as bad, not looking for bugs and only looking for status quo no issues.

even core went to a separate "segnet" because they were too scared to break testnet..(facepalm)

the stupidity is that testnet is suppose to break.. to reveal bugs. its not suppose to be used as a proof of status quo.
its should be in a 'constant state of breaking/forking, until it breaks no more' paradigm.

those using testnet should be always looking for bugs.. always trying to break testnet, to fix the cause... not running with the safety training wheels on only looking for status quo/successes.

being blind to problems but over selling what works is a fools plan.

other nodes end up making their own testnets due to the vetting process of core not wanting random nodes trying to break the main testnet.
you just dont hear or see much chat about it

if nodes avoided consensus and put up the ban node barricade to cause an intentional split then,
if you are going to do that, then certainly change the mining algo.
especially if the split you are on is a low hashrate. because by going it alone is not just exposed attack. but also causes the nodes to be waiting alot longer for genuine blocks to be produced due to high difficulty vs low hashrate.

---

due to intentionally banning nodes there would be 2 sets of data with different chains. because the nodes are no longer cooperating/connecting to eachother to form consensus and orphan the wrong/undesirable blocks.

if you have changed the mining algo and now you have your own altcoin, name it clams 2.0 or another random name but its no longer bitcoin

---

if however you stuck to the same algo's and wanted to play out pool attack scenarios of what could happen if an opposing pool hopped over to your altcoin... then here goes

opposition with low hashrate (under 50% of your network):
the opposition either has to follow the rules of your altcoin to get accepted into that chain to avoid rejects/orphans means the only attack vector that has consequence is 'empty blocks' to cause a bottleneck of transactions left waiting in mempool, and not be subject to reject/orphan risk.
else not following the rules they would get rejected and the nodes just wait for the next genuine rule following block. (no drama)

medium hashrate over 50%:
same as before but this time there are more empty blocks,

else not following the rules same as before but this time they also may be able to build a heritage of rejects if they manage to be next inline for the following block to. resurrecting their reject now as a parent to then add another block ontop as a child, where both simply get rejected (this is then buzzworded 'orphan')  (no drama)

high hashrate:
same as before but this time there are even more empty blocks,

else not following the rules same as before but this time they also may be able to build a deeper heritage of rejects if they manage to be next inline for the following block and the following block after that. resurrecting the first reject now as a grandparent to then add second reject ontop as a parent and the newest block as the child, where they simply get rejected (this is then buzzworded 'orphan chain') (no drama)

---

rule following, no reject 'empty block' attack vector.
   if able to be persistent(many weeks) and have high enough hash power.. can also cause the difficulty to rise so that the ethical pool has less chances of having blocks with transactions included.
rule breaking, attack vector.
   if able to be persistent and have high enough hash power.. can also cause nodes to just get spammed with rejects while nodes wait for genuine blocks

now take note of my very first sentence.
there is only 2 chains if the nodes intentionally ban opposing nodes.
just having bad data does not cause long term permanent chains. because eventually it will orphan/reject the bad data out, where the low minority rejecting the high majority(on the one chain) simply end up being spammed with rejects/orphans while waiting for genuine blocks

---

what i have said in this post is about POOLS hopping over.

however if the opposing NODES hopped over and took over the altcoin chain by a dominant majority amount of nodes (sybil attack) this would allow them to accept the rejected data and build on the chain as acceptable where by the rules change.. leaving the minority stalled and unsynced

1. do not have the aim of your "meetings" just to gather 'investors' with the only goal to push bitcoin to $2k by january 2018..

2. to take bitcoin mainstream. requires
a) get core to release their barbaric hindering of growth by delaying onchain scaling, and instead get real scaling happening rather than their centralised commercial services due to onchain hindered scaling which they are causing.
b) make bitcoin as easy to use and secure to use as a NFC smart watch that only sends out public data (public keys and signed tx's), not private keys
c) remember bitcoin is just code it has no legs to walk up to merchants/shops. has no voice to talk to merchants/shops. PEOPLE need to get involved
d) do not expect rich investors to fly to your local town to get your local shop to accept bitcoin. if YOU want your local shop to accept bitcoin YOU ask for it.
e) if everyone follows point (d) then everyone can help get bitcoin more mainstream in their own area

3) to summarise points 1 and 2. concentrate on letting bitcoin grow. rather than the short term greedy mindset of price spikes and pump and dumps

lol,

please return to the logical open mind you retained for a few months. seems you are wearing the core/blockstream defender cap again.
your suggesting gmaxwell is not part of core?

what are you saying, he done a hearn? and no longer coding any bitcoin code, nor acts as a CTO of devs programming bitcoin implementations?
is that your suggestion that he is totally gone and no longer involved with bitcoin?