like coindesk CEO barry silbert
who have ownership stake in gmaxwell(blockstream)
who have ownership stake in pieter wuille(blockstream)
who have ownership stake in bobby lee(BTCC pool)

and oh look at who are really pushing for segwit.
oh look at the only main pool that jumped in favour of segwit the very week it was released.

oops i mentioned a company and name... lets now see the trolls jump in to defend the person and not think rationally about the code changes

getting jailed not a concern. because you cant stop bitcoin by taking a dev away.

however, giving them an employment contract with terms and conditions to do x,y,z is

by advertising some kardashian-esq social drama, they can bring the crappy drama to the front page whilst pushing the more important questions about what happened at the round table to the bottom of the list. hoping no one reads, asks or see's the actual important information. (about code/feature proposals)

its not.. learn consensus..
any node (mine already does) has and can have a blocksize buffer more than 1mb.. (unless you are using the precompiled core that doesnt let you change it post compile, soo need to change the code then compile it)

hundreds of nodes already do have buffers above 1mb.. yet no 2nd network is formed, yep thats right nothing bad has happened.

the rule change is that anything BELOW 2000000 is acceptable. meaning right now 1mb is being passed around happily. because 1mb is below 2mb.
ill explain the rest after the next quote


those that want a second network are CORE. but those that are not core want consensus to keep the network together as one chain
here is cores chief technical officer proving its the core mindset that wants a network split and the others reject his plan

so those others want consensus, not a 'bilateral' split.
this means if nodes actually set their nodes to 2000000 and the pools see a high enough majority that wont cause much/any orphan risk. the pools can then make blocks above 1mb.
this just causes the minority opposition from being able to sync to the network. and causing them to simply stall..
not creating a second chain. but just left stuck at a certain blockheight.

emphasis.. not 2 chains. not a bilateral fork.

the only way to make a second chain/network aka bilateral fork is to get the opposition to intentionally not communicate with the majority thus not be left stuck because they are no longer receiving/rejecting blocks from the majority. and instead start building their own chain.
(simply put ignoring consensus, ignoring the orphaning mechanism, ignoring the majority)

ethereum was not a consensus fork, was not even a controversial fork.. it was an intentional bilateral split
research:  --oppose-dao-fork

lets please avoid the lame kardashian drama 'who is satoshi' distractions of the roundtable.
and lets ask, discuss and look into the real question that should be asked:

what actual proposals of bitcoin code changes, features and demands were discussed at the round table

coindesk has made a summary
http://www.coindesk.com/blocked-block-size-bitcoin-basics-satoshi-roundtable/

any other sources and info? which would help the community know whats been said and suggested during their closed door meetings


funny part is if an altcoin can cope with 8mb.. then all the "internet cant cope, nodes cant cope" rhetoric just got destroyed,  because obviously there is no node/internet issues if an alt can do it..

so just let bitcoin itself have the capacity starting at a rational dynamic beginning of say 2mb and naturally grow, knowing 8mb is possible. especialy knowing that they deem altcoins/node/the internet can cope with it..

more trolls trying to keep this 'event' active for a month or two. to distract us from talking about the code changes.
so that we dont ask what esle was talked about at the round table.

so lets just divert this topic.

what else was talked about at the roundtable. what have the devs proposed to do for the corporations that turned up at the all-inclusive weekend.

let the social drama sit to the side and ask the real questions about the roundtable

putting the whole document on the blockchain is alot of bloat. not advised
because you are limited to how many bytes per output. so it ends up as having lots of outputs to get the whole document encluded..

but even satoshi in 2009 converted a short message to hash that he then put into an 'OP_return' output.
https://blockchain.info/tx/4a5e1e4baab89f3a32518a88c31bc87f618f76673e2cc77ab2127b7afdeda33b?show_adv=true
"��
EThe Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks "

as you can see by this website that translates the hash back to ascii
http://coinsecrets.org/

other examples are
https://blockchain.info/tx/819b7e8999e101db63f0e68fca91afcabf53ea7a74872bbd0d020df18ad2178b?show_adv=true
'j<hellow Idid send you ,adn are you fine,I love you fromJapan'

people either write a short message or add a url or a files hash (metadata)

this has been possible since day one, but not advised to get everyone to use bitcoin as a message store.
and especially not advised to do multiple outputs to store whole documents

though this is what people have termed 'proof of existence' years ago, to show that data/idea/concept existed at a certain date by adding a reference to the data into bitcoins blockchain.

see how simple this drama can escalate to meander with simple name calling..

funny part is when someone pokes the bear by making an insinuation. the other side reacts. then the bear poker can play the victim card.
endless kardashian drama.

in short no one should care about the name drama. and instead be looking at what CODE decisions were made at the roundtable.
if you cant see that coindesk is causing fake social drama to distract sheep from asking about the code.. with distractions about 'who is satoshi'..
then you wont see what changes to the CODE will be until its too late

so i emboldened the part where even you say one person used the satoshi pseudonym.
what is known.. only one person used the satoshi username
what is known.. other people did help satoshi.. eg hal finney, plus others.
but again for emphasis
what is known.. only one person used the satoshi username

oh and call me a troll all you like. simply because i am not hailing PEOPLE and BUSINESSES up as kings..
i think your missing the point of this topic.

no one should care about the people or businesses, and only care about the code.
if you would rather protect people and not care/protect the code and bitcoins ethos.. then this whole topic is lost on you

i dont defend people i defend the direction bitcoin is heading and hoping it stays inline with bitcoins ethos. i dont care if peoples pseudonymous nicknames get hurt. as thats just some side drama they play the victim card in..

funny thing is people think because i detest gmaxwell and sipa, that somehow i must think gavin, hearn and ver are kings. wrong

what if i told you gavin (via Bloq) and hearn (via R3) are in the same pockets as blockstream devs, once you peal all the layers away.
and that drama is just a finger pointing exercise to distract the sheep.

even funnier part is that its only core that are trying to split the community, and trying reserve psychology to point cores own plans to sound like its what other teams are doing. fooling the sheep to follow the wolf by pointing at a blacksheep and saying "look sheep stay away from that black sheep, its really a wolf"


even gmaxwell admits ver, gavin and others were against splitting the network.. but gmaxwell loved the idea of splitting it

all im saying is just envision a different scenario than the security video.. say one which doesnt involve as much if's or maybe's then you will show your evidence of origin may have some real utility

take julian assange's use of the blockchain as proof of life, as a for instance

"while the peasants hand pennies to the bank... the bank is accumilating pounds."

all the bank needs to do is hold them until their age(confirms) is long enough that it costs nothing to move the pennies by which time a penny is also worth more then a loaf of bread, and then change them for pounds (spend them to yourself to combine the value)

knowing that as that time passes the peasants give up waiting and never come back to get their pennies

what if i told you that coindesk ceo barry silbert, pays matonis a wage via coindesk
what if i told you barry silbert pays gavin via barry's investment/ownership stake in Bloq
what if i told you barry silbert pays gmaxwell via barry's investment/ownership stake in Blockstream

and its just a big finger pointing distraction for clickbait and drama for the last 2 years to get people to take their eye off the ball

EG when politics get serious and real lives can be affected and wars begin.. bring in some kardashian drama to settle the sheep back to sleep so they dont notice the real concerns happening in the opposite direction

seriously?
im not an enemy of fungibility..

im an enemy of bloated transactions using failed Pedersen commitment idea that permanently bloats up a transaction but ends up only giving about a couple weeks of secrecy.

here is the issue with your commitments. if people are to mix funds and move funds for your confidential transactions to work where funds A and funds B, when being spent must equal the same as funds C.. then many people need to use the same commitment for the math to work.

as soon as someone knows the commitment. it can all be decoded.

same as the concern of the other separate problem of "address re-use". i see rusty russel is very quiet about the "address reuse" issue which will cause an issue for LN.

try to think beyond the positivies of your short term use strategies to offer a feature and instead think about scenario's of length of utility before the utility itself becomes a weakness.. try to be critical of your own code, not plaster it with utopian dream advertising, while sweeping the risks under the carpet.

you love giving people hope and empty promises or features offering empty short term gestures, but you dont give the community what they really need.
and thats why i lost all respect for you.

not whining. he did hit the point. he just didnt realise he was slapping his own face.
2 vs 4
gmaxwll is 4 lover and a 2 hater

when making an exchange.

1. if you are going to handle fiat. expect costs of running to be higher and alot of fiat compliance rules required.

2. never have a private key on the front end server. instead just have public keys attached to peoples accounts for deposit display.
and a database to store withdraw requests. which a separate remote system watches the withdrawal request database. to separately process withdrawals. thus mitigating any hackers from stealing keys from the front end server.

3. as an extra 2factor authentication. ask customers to supply a unused public key of their own. and then send the customer a random message to sign using their key(privately on their own wallet) and paste in the signature back to you as the 2factor response. this way only the customer can make requests.

meaning no passwords need to be stored on the front end server either. making the front end server just the GUI interface with nothing of value to grab.

man exchanges do not do this. which is the rookie mistake.

because confidential Pedersen commitments is their future plans. and because its not yet official, i presume they will deny it even is in the plan and then meander the topic into more maniacal over dramatics by stating they have not added it yet so i must be wrong... rather than admit i see a few steps ahead of what they are ready to admit.
so i left off their future plan to reduce their maniac mindsets of twisting words.

as for how they are paid. well they will denie they are paid to work on bitcoin and deny their blockstream investors have anything to do with bitcoin... more nonsense meandering away from the topic at hand.

so i tried to stick to the point gmaxwell made.. and just highlighted where he failed.... 2mb block vs 4mb weight.. which is bigger.. even a 6yo knows 4 is bigger

yep rational people want dynamic blocks of lean tx's starting at 2mb block buffer limit..

large block maniacs want 4mb weight.

you can spot a maniac when they cant even tell you that 4 is bigger than 2..so will refuse to admit they are the large block maniacs,

if you cant admit that 4 is bigger then 2 and always try to make it sound like 2 is bigger than 4.. then no one should take any notice of other word twisting crap thats said

you need to know his whole back story.

1. in something like 2013 he told a friend to set up a trust. and the collateral was a bunch of PUBLIC KEYS
he did not show proof of signatures of the PUBLIC keys. he relied on his friends naivity to only check the balances of the PUBLIC KEYS to get a total value to use as collateral.

2. emphasis the friend did not understand bitcoin so thought showing public key was like showing a bank statement as proof enough of holding.

3. then using the TRUST which is then falsely insured for multiple millions of dollars of value. (although it held 0 assets and just a list of random early adopter public keys). that TRUST fund was then used as collateral to then get other investments by FALSELY suggesting it was secured by million of assets. due to an insurance policy insuring the trust.

4. the now invested fund was then used to make other investments..

5. australian authorities questioned the trust so he legged it to england.. then craig contacted media and started his own 'i am satoshi' whispers because the australian government were doubting his trusts assets.

6.  later people have seen that the proof is not proof. but publicly available data.. this has made the first trust funds assets factually reduced to zero. meaning the initial investors will want to drop out. which is snowballing right now like ripples in the water. each level of investment has now realised their funds are not secure.

7. now craig wright is trying to get patents and do book deals, etc to try raising capital and creating assets to bulk up the empty trust to try and salvage some value of that empty trust. purely to avoid civil and possible criminal charges if he ever got deported to australia to have to answer for his actions. he thinks if he can replace the PUBLIC key fake asset with patents and book royalty contracts to then give the trust real value, he can avoid civil/criminal actions by showing the trust holds real value.

he isnt satoshi, he just didnt think the community would recognise the signature
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

as being a publicly available string of text for the last 7 years

he thought people wouldnt pick up on it so quick. so had to play backtrack
i feel sorry for all the investors he has conned