the topology change has already occured.
matt corallo's Fibre as the green gatekeepers (aka gmaxwells upstreamers) in relation to the left side image of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation

the diversity recognition and acceptance behaviour can be white/blacklisted pre or post activation (nice bit of sweeping under the carpet word play from gmaxwell).. as jetcash has already proved by banning them already.. does not prove or disprove that it cant happen after segwit release

but topology vs diversity are different things
the diversity post segwit still to be determined after activation, once (cores own words) white listing old nodes (gmaxwells downstreamers) becames a more apparent thing.

i do laugh how gmaxwell makes half a statement to hide the full context

i find it funny how he isnt even commenting about
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/


because he knows the topology is already in the format i mentioned on the left side pic of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation, and the image in previous sentance of this post

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1466 (25.95%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1228 (21.73%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   118 (2%)

49.68 = ~50 of nodes implicitly.. but far lower explicitly.
also nodes dont get a vote..

pools 23%


so neither pools or nodes are at 70%.
plus if you take away the pools count from the node count. less than 50% nodecount.
yep pools were already counted as part of the ~50%
yep if you excluded pools multiple nodes the count goes down. (so dont imply missing 23% hashrate can add on 20% nodecount. as thats not how the measures work. they are independent of each other and measuring different things(my assumption of how you may have come to your wrong 70% figure))

short summary of the OP..

to prevent communism (the rich holding all the wealth and the rich) splitting the network.

the op proposes
splitting the network and moving to PoS so that the rich hoard all the funds and control it all.

PoS is not a way to even the playing field. its a way that the wealthy control what block gets signed and the wealthy get the reward.

there is no 'trickle down' economics of PoS.. infact PoS is the communism agenda. where those at the top get more..

it makes me laugh that he says the threat to bitcoin is from the poor. and so he want to shift control to the rich.

typical fox news viewers do that.

time he stopped smoking and done more research on real life and real facts. instead of the twisted info he has been handed.

cant ven get the left and right correct. thats how twisted and misinformed the OP is.
here is a hint..
nazi=communist=far right. (rich set the rules and demand control and hoard the funds) PoS

liberals, socialists = left (everyone plays a part and has a say and can share the rewards) PoW

i think you need to go research some more.
take some time, learn bitcoin, run some scenarios. look how the reality of bitcoin works.

P.S ethereum was not consensus(95%) or controversial(low%) .. it was intentional split, using a ban node feature to avoid the correction mechanism(orphaning) that keeps things on one straight
ill spell it out for you, so your research is google friendly

--oppose-dao-fork

enjoy your research

how can you have a proof of origination.. if it is not 100% proof, because it requires X/Y/Z if's and buts to be met before you can treat it as proof.

its only proof when there is no way to 'if or but' the evidence.

take the security video scenario.
instead of ifs or buts of needing the video to be securely stored in a vault that even staff cant access..

imagine it like it doesnt matter if there are 5000 different copies of a video. or if 100 members of staff can get to the video.. a proof of origin would be the way to know exactly which copy is the original no matter how the original was handled, physically stored, etc

lesson 1.
if 50,000 nodes appeared.. and then intentionally split.. all they are doing is making clams 2.0

lesson 2.
coins are locked to private keys. not software. so while they play with clams 2.0 your funds are still on your private key

lesson 3.
making bitcoin about politics and race just makes you sound like a Fox news presenter shouting "bomb them bomb them bomb them"

lol

oh look trendon shavers2.0
wanting people to hand them atleast $1000 and not touch it for upto 15 years...
pfft

im laughing at all the red flags.

lol nothing in the world can be bought with such urgency that cant also be bought by starting off with fiat.

i am laughing at the fact that your scamming 5btc.. usually scammers start low. but you are really going big lol
let alone the first red flag of zero trust (noob account) let alone lack of a sob story to explain what you need to buy
let alone the fact that your asking for such an amount.

you just havnt grasped the basics of your foolishness.

though there are many ways to fool something. using time stamps to prove something of the past, there is actual limit to its effectiveness.

your scenario has to be more reliant of an entity having no access to the source material. meaning the requirement of needing a timestamp becomes less required anyway, and more of just a secondary gesture of assurance, rather then a primary proof of origin.

i think your security system scenario needs to be replaced with other creative scenario, because i can already think of several methods to get around the security system scenario.

think up a new scenario that concentrates on, 'when all else fails' and nothing can be trusted. that your 'proof of origination' can be the proof without trust, without other requirements to be needed.. and be the sole safety feature that still makes the evidence valid. (in short remove the if's and but's)

5btc lol

i wonder why your bank has turned you down.

plus you cant buy anything that is needed so urgently that cant also be bought using fiat.
ask your friends and family for a loan. go to a bank and get a loan. then screw them over.

but the thing is if an alt can handle XXmb and superlow fee's onchain.. then obviously cores doomsdays of not coping are foolish. so lets just make bitcoin great and not think altcoins and alternative networks are the solution


more like core will perform the intentional split.. only core devs have advocated they would do such.. no one else.


'stake-holders' lol
they have no power.

NODES and pools .. you know the actual CODE maintainers, have an affect on what direction the code takes.

accepting devs empty promises and sitting on your hand hoping some rich guy (stakeholder) pulls out his blockstream investment in the hope it stops blockstream from commercialising peoples transactions into permissioned and locked multisigs. just wont work

infact it does the oposite.. if blockstream has to spend its reserves to let an investor exit.. then blockstream has to get deeper into its commercial services to get some more funds to refill the reserves to pay the other investors.

we should not be sheep and pretend/trust other people have morals. thats the whole point of bitcoin. we should not turn it into a system requiring trust.

consensus dynamic blocks can grow when the community is ready. we dont need to 'trust' that a dev will release X or Y in Z months. because having dynamic settings, the users can be in control and consensus of the majority move things.. not devs.

accepting devs empty one time gesture(segwit) that only works if we move our funds to their new p2wpkh or their permissioned p2wsh keys. and then be left waiting a long while for the hopes they at some point offer real decentralised scalability onchain(user defined dynamic settings). instead of their rush into commercialised p2wsh managed hubs. is not the route to go.

pretending that we should stand back and do nothing for the hopes some richguy pulls out their invests is not the route either.

bitcoin is just code.

it has no voice, it has no arms and legs.

bitcoin cannot walk into YOUR local shop and tell YOUR local shops manager all about bitcoin.
if you want YOUR local town to start accepting bitcoin, YOU have to try talking to shops to accept it.

dont sit on YOUR hands waiting for the code to do something. or for someone from bitpay/coinbase to specially travel to YOUR town to do the footwork for you.

if YOU want it, YOU need to ask for it

not fool proof.

say i wanted to break into a place with security surveillance tonight.

i prepare the event by recording footage from months prior of no events/break ins at the location that will get hit. and then on the night. i swap the tapes.
now the footage of months ago(no hit) gets timestamped with tonights timestamp and everyone now trusts the footage they are watching tomorrow after the break in, was from tonight.

now you have no proof i was there.. as the timestamped and blockchain hash immutability shows i wasnt at the scene of the crime at the time.

i then do the same for my alibi by months prior going somewhere miles away from the intended location. do normal things to get recorded(say a restaurant or streetcam) and then take the tape, hold onto it.. then get someone to swap it out tonight so it too gets timestamped with tonights lock

now i also have timestamped and blockchain locked proof i was somewhere else at the time of the crime

you do know hyperledger already is the IMF/government/bank plan for their fiat2.0
many countries are already involved.
bank of America, Canada, Scotland, England, Russia, Switzerland, china, tokyo, australia, to name just a few already involved and doing alpha tests on some ledgers they have tethered together.


how to overcome it......... by not letting bitcoin become part of it. let bitcoin be the open permissionless zero barrier of entry option. dont let devs push things into permissioned services as an end goal and then sidechain(hyperledgers) as the exit route

if your holding funds in an exchange instead of a wallet. you cant sign a transaction because you dont own the private key to sign it.

if you do have access to the private key then shorena has done a guide for whichever wallet you are using

the reply is not a corporate head office opinion.

its a standard call centre/ support centre low level employee reply.

many businesses reply this type of message as standard. without it leading to anything.

its like the standard reply when handing in a C.V/resume

"we are sorry the position has been filled but we have kept your C.V on file incase any other opportunities come up in the future"

translation.. it does not mean your top of the list or special. you wont be contacted to get an interview if the same opportunity opens up in 6 months

this top is over hyped out of context and exaggerating..

put it this way.. imagine its a fast food location..

health regulators do a visit once a year. if they see rat droppings or food not cooked at a certain safe temperature. the health regulators set a action plan for the business to clean up and sort out the issues and they would return in a month to reinspect.

if after a month they pass. they are informed there will be a random inspection in X months. if that passes they then dont return for a year.
going back to the usual expected and standard yearly inspections..

now.. if the chinese exchanges did do things that while handling fiat, required them to follow fiat regulations. and did follow it correctly.. they would only be inspected once a year.
but because issues were found there will be a couple inspections before next year until regulators are happy the fiat accepting exchanges are following fiat regulations..

in short.. the exchanges should not have done more then regulations allowed if they intend to continue handling fiat.

this has nothing to do with bitcoin.

lets delve into this point.

imagine the network had 55 nodes. for easy display purposs of 5500

and the acceptable node tolerances(user settings) were all collated and put into order
1.0mb, 1.5mb, 1.5mb, 2.0mb, 2.3mb, 2.5mb, 2.6mb, 2.7mb, 2.8mb, 2.9mb, 3.0mb,
3.0mb, 3.0mb, 3.2mb, 3.5mb, 3.6mb, 3.6mb, 3.7mb, 3.8mb, 4.0mb, 4.1mb, 4.1mb,
4.1mb, 4.3mb, 4.6mb, 4.7mb, 4.8mb, 4.9mb, 4.9mb, 5.0mb, 5.0mb, 5.1mb, 5.1mb,
5.2mb, 5.6mb, 5.8mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 6.0mb, 6.1mb, 6.1mb, 6.2mb,
6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.3mb, 6.3mb, 6.4mb, 6.4mb, 6.5mb, 6.5mb, 6.6mb, 6.6mb,

the pool then takes away three nodes (~275 of 5500) to get to what would be ~95%
1.0mb, 1.5mb, 1.5mb, 2.0mb, 2.3mb, 2.5mb, 2.6mb, 2.7mb, 2.8mb, 2.9mb, 3.0mb,
3.0mb, 3.0mb, 3.2mb, 3.5mb, 3.6mb, 3.6mb, 3.7mb, 3.8mb, 4.0mb, 4.1mb, 4.1mb,
4.1mb, 4.3mb, 4.6mb, 4.7mb, 4.8mb, 4.9mb, 4.9mb, 5.0mb, 5.0mb, 5.1mb, 5.1mb,
5.2mb, 5.6mb, 5.8mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 6.0mb, 6.1mb, 6.1mb, 6.2mb,
6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.3mb, 6.3mb, 6.4mb, 6.4mb, 6.5mb, 6.5mb, 6.6mb, 6.6mb,

then knowing that all remaining 52 nodes can accept 2mb.. thats what they make..

now here is the fun part most people forget.

pools start a flagging vote consensus saying we will make upto 2mb.. once the pools get 95% consensus.. those 3(300) nodes at the bottom can up their limit.. as it takes time for pool consensus to get reached.. (eg 2 months for segwit and not near 95% yet)
so plenty of time for then to change a setting.

then. lets say it activates. pools can now push passed the 1mb old barrier and start moving to 2mb (much like the 2013DB bug where it pushed passed the 500k barrier even when nodes had a higher buffer.)

and guess what.. they wont jump straight to 2mb.. (much like they didnt jump straight to 1mb in 2013). they would try 1.001mb and test the water, see if any bugs present themselves any orphan risk. any issues.. if not. they push on 1.002mb, 1.003mb and so on over time naturally growing until* they get to 2mb due to demand and need.

*side note the 2 grey nodes(1.5mb i underlined) actually still happily accept blocks during the early movements meaning they dont actually need to decide to join consensus as early as the lowest single node at 1mb.. so while pools are testing the water only 1 node (100 of 5500) need to make a decision during the pool consensus+grace period before activation. the other 2(200 of 5500) can have a bit of breathing room ontop of pools consensus+grace period..

then when the limit is reached, finally after a lengthy natural growth period. the process begins again.
slow natural risk averting process where the nodes decide the tolerance

so dont expect a spammer to force a pools hand to make a pool jump up to 2mb on day one of activation.. pools are smarter then that
(much like the spam attacks of 2012-2015 didnt cause blocks to all be 1mb non stop, it was a slow curve over a couple of years)

because i read and research and seen what gmaxwell and gang have been getting excited and are talking about.
then i have seen a few other bits about why they are getting excited. and then i read and research more and deeper into it.

by the way there are other proposals.. just not been added to cores moderated bip list.

but by you being aware of it atleast shows the chit chat within their group has reached your ears for you to be aware of it too

p.s i edited previous post to added context to the other question you mentioned

the A base  Ax2 weight   EG 2mb base 4mb weight  would allow segwit and actual tx count rise..
the A base  Ax4 weight   EG 1mb base 4mb weight  or 2mb base 8mb weight.  is cores desire..

the reason that need Ax4 is because 2017 they wanted to slide in segwit, and have the spare 1.9best bet expectation of spare weight (remember your 2.1mb utility) as just spare unused buffer..
but later while still at 2.1mb with 4500tx.. they want to turn the same transactions of ~450byte into 1450byte with their confidential payments idea.

thus still 4500tx but instead of 2.1mb total it would be 4mb total..

in short
Ax2 (2mb base 4mb weight -> 3mb base 6mb weight) allows segwit and lean tx growth
Ax4 (1mb base 4mb weight -> 2mb base 8mb weight-> 3mb base 12mb weight) allows segwit and bloated confidential tx growth


more power to miners?

seriously!!

miners cant produce blocks bigger than the majority of nodes would accept. end of..

let me guessing your thinking then financially penalising pools by changing the blockreward mechanism is gonna help?..
no thats just a tactic to turn nodes and pools away from agreeing to that bip (because its stupid) so that dev's can say "oh look the community dont want it"

rather than doing a proper natural consensus dynamic implementation