agreed
the best solution is have a new keypair type. but have it voluntary. all keypair types are always accepted. then let people voluntarily move them or not.

at worse (the doomsday of QC) people funds get stolen out of old keys. temporary price drama when theives, steal and cashout. but then it stablizes when those coins circulate into the new secure keypairs. thus retaining fungibility and the drama surpasses like a bad episode we dont watch again.

the coins stay in circulation and people learn their lesson.

however destroying old coins or getting a 'manager' to decide to take the coins and redistribute/destroy them (as he deems fit) purely using the fear of a theft /destruction as an excuse to allow him to thieve/ destroy. is stupid

bitcoin trading does not affect banks/governments FIAT

its that simple.

here is a rational and logical thought.
for every buyer is an opposite and equal seller.  FIAT is not burned. it just moves bank accounts.

infact in 90% of trades it stays in the same bank account. (the exchange).

but in a more broader longer term view X deposits to Y who withdraws to Z. but XYZ are all funds held in bankaccounts the governemt oversee. thus nothing changes in regards to fiat. apart from the account holder.

what would change. is if chinese were posting bank notes to a service. or stealing gold bars from banks and posting them to a service.. then that would be taking from the economy.

but bitcoin legitimately does not do that. all banks see is a name change on who owns what.. banks still hold the fiat and just change the account holder, thats it.

in short banks dont care about bitcoin. banks have legal tender laws, tax laws, minimum wage laws that ensure fiat remains in circulation to keep them in a job

all the chinese drama was just standard regulation policy stuff.

dont bother talking to CB.
he loves to meander the topic off topic. poke the bear, get you to reply and then poke some more until you bite and then claim he is the victim.

he is just tryng to derail topics and meander into making him a victim so he can then try play a victim card to make people think he deserve sympathy. although his point has no facts, data, stats, info.
he just wants sympathy and then use that sympathy to get people on his side.

he abuses emotion to win people. not using data or facts. just emotion
just ignore him he is a well trained troll

---

back to the topic on hand
new keytypes should be added. and people can voluntarily move their funds.
those that dont can continue using old keytypes. and be at risk of having their funds stolen

in no way should old keys be destroyed or have funds moved by some 'manager' to be redistributed.
in short being punished by centralists at blockstream.

instead the coins should remain part of circulation. and if a hacker was to QC bruteforce. then those coins can be stolen.

end result is temporary price drama but no death to fungibility or coin cap limiits

unlike the proposal to destroy coins which does destroy fungibility and destroy the coincap limit and permanently causes issues for the whole economy

ok now your trolling.
go do some research and learn something.. as all your doing is wasting your own time otherwise

have a nice day

you have no clue.

just because you have read a story from X blockstreamers does not make the story true. nor does it mean everyone.

you have cabin fever. thinking the cabin is decentralised because you see more then one person in it. the issue is that your not allowing yourself to get out of the cabin to see things from the whole world. you want to stay within the cabin because you are confortable.

bitcoin is the outside world not the cabin you have locked yourself into.

please look outside of the box and not subject yourself to only conversations with those locked inside the box.

its gmaxwell that wants to intentionally split to alts.. everyone else wants to stay on the mainnet.

i bet you think ver wants paypal2.0 because you read a TITLE of a post on r/bitcoin. but didnt read the CONTEXT.

its LN that is being described as paypal2.0 and ver simply said he would be happy to let blockstream have their LN if blockstream allow mainnet to dynamically and naturally grow.

in no way did it mean ver was making LN.. as we all know thats what blockstream are doing.
CONTEXT COUNTS

wake up and look passed the propaganda of misinterpreting TITLES of posts and start reading the CONTEXT and then researching from an unbiased and diverse set of sources. otherwise your just circle jerking the same stories in the same small cabin of a few biased people. thinking your all correct because your all hear only one story.

here i will spell it out for you.
here is blockstream gmaxwell trying to get anyone not blockstream to fork away..  and they replied they wont be that dumb to intentionally split the network... and before you reply BullSh*t.. its from the horses mouth himself.


gmaxwell is desparate to get blockstream devs to dominate bitcoin by making other teams fork off.. but none of the other teams are listening to him. they are laughing at him.

if there is anything that i could suggest you learn. without bias..
learn consensus (built into bitcoin)
learn the difference between concensus and an intentional split (gmaxwell calls bilateral fork)

oh and yes hardforks are not all bilateral
there are consensus hardforks too(one chain, minority simply cannot sync)

gmaxwell is trying to brush consensus under the carpet and then shine a glowing light on bilateral. simply because he wants the split

please take some time to research outside of the box you have put yourself into

well if you want to use segwit for instance, you will need to move over to new private/public keys. so we shall see what a realistic user adoption of new keys would occur.

if segwit activates. we can look at how much of the community move coins into segwit transaction types.

my opinion we wont ever see the full ~4500tx/block (2.1x) one time boost of segwit because that 2.1x is based on 100% of people using segwit transactions.
but atleast we can see how many people adopt the new keytype to be able to look at the possible scenarios of a QC doomsay of stealing funds. basing that far future doomsday on the stats of segwit adoption.

and no segwit is not QC resistant. im just talking about statistics of adoption rate to later have some adoption stats to let analysts look at how many possible bitcoin thefts could occur if QC was going to bruteforce and steal funds.

i wish all of these blockstream defenders who want blockstream to be central. actually understood what they are actually saying.
by removing diversity of several different implementations and only having one implementation. they are literally calling out for centralisation.

its like they are on autopilot just copy any pasting someone elses blockstream desires. without even thinking about it

viscount

you are listening to the blockstream defense leagues version of intentional splits to give full control to blockstream.. yep gmaxwell wants an intentional split but other implentations want consensus of one network and laughed at gmaxwells centralist rant

 please put a rational hat on and learn consensus.

yes learn consensus

right now non blockstream indoctrinated releases are fully running on bitcoins mainnet and nothing has happened.
if consensus to increase the blocksize is reached. then it does not create an altcoin. it continues on one chain with a larger buffer space by default.
those few minority holding back.. simply cannot sync. they are not the mainnet they are not creating new blocks. they are simply stuck.
again no altcoin for the minority.

if no majority is reached, nothing changes. thus no change.

the only way the minority can create new blocks is to biasedly ban connecting to the mainnet and to avoid consensus of the mainnet to avoid orphans. to then be on their own small network.
this is what ethereum done. biasedly banned the opposition to intentionally create an altcoin
research: --oppose-dao-fork

the minority who ban the majority.. become the altcoin.. not the other way round

ironside.

be patient, and dont take this as an attack. take this as an experiment of having an open mind.
so, take off your blockstream defensive hat for 2 minutes. dont worry i know its uncomfortable. but for just 2 minutes wear a logical and rational hat for 2 minutes.

ok here goes
many implementations. such as bitcoinJ, BU, etc etc are actually fully operational on bitcoins mainnet right now. people have their blocksize buffer limits set at whatever they choose right now and their is nothing bad happening.
mindblowing right! fully active all rules working implementations running on bitcoins mainnet..

EG having a 2mb or a 4mb setting means that these implementations all accept blocks UNDER those limits. meaning they accept 1mb blocks too.
thus not causing harm. mindblowing thought right!

however segwit, even 0.13.2 is not a full operation release, it does have code to check new transaction types that are not part of the bitcoin 2009-2016 rule..but yep here is the but..
segwit is not actually running new transaction types or segwit features right now.


when it does activate(changes the rules) the other bitcoin nodes of 2009-2016 will not relay these new transactions 'as is' when unconfirmed.. but wont reject them once they are confirmed, not due to segwit being within old rules, but because segwit has found a blindspot where the old rules walk passed them like a ninja(unchecked).

hense why they say the new rules are 'compatible'. because of the stealthy (soft) trick.

lets word it another way bitcoin could in the future include litecoin features... but until its actually part of bitcoin by having an activation. litecoin is an altcoin. only after activation can you actually say that litecoin is part of bitcoin.

now if there is new alternate transaction types, alternative rules and not actually actively operating on bitcoin right now. its not part of bitcoin. thus is an altcoin.
bitcoin core 0.13.1 and 0.13.2 are a hybrid containing old rules and new rules. but as for 0.14 it will be totally different features, transaction types and node connection preferences.

right up until its activated it is an altcoin because until activation.. its not compatible.
eg if you tried to get an unconfirmed segwit transaction relayed by bitcoins 2009-2016 nodes they can mess with it more then you can know.

even blockstream know this because they have not added the use of segwit new keypairs feature to any of the releases. that will be a release after activation.

after activation segwit transactions that are confirmed into blocks are treated not as fully validated by 2009-2016 nodes. but sit in a state that is blindly looked passed.

current releases are just flagging releases just to show desire for. but without containing full use of these alternate features.

what you also need to know is that after activation segwit wont relay unconfirmed transactions through the old2009-2016 nodes due to the unconfirmed tx problem. so segwit nodes will biasedly only connect to other segwit nodes for unconfirmed tx relay. but once confirmed. the pools can then relay the blocks out to any node.

thus the network (imagination needed) instead of being like a bush shape (out in many directions everyone connected to everyone) becomes more like a tree (up in one direction from a segwit node towards a pool and then the pools sprout out like a bush)

come on people, wise up
some people need to think rationally, instead of thinking all of blockstreams idea's are perfect. purely because they trust blockstream. think rationally, think logically and think beyond your personal "i hope to get rich if i circlejerk blockstream"

just think about it..
obliterating coins out of fear of obliterating coins..!!!

thats like running infront of a car tomorrow, on purpose.. out of fear one day in the next few decades you might be in a car accident.
thats like smoking 200 cigarates a day to get cancer out of fear one day you might get cancer.

we should have an OPTION of a new keypair type. and let people FREELY and VOLUNTARILY move THEIR OWN funds across.. but not to forcibly obliterate any coin that doesn't personally volunteer to move their own coin. as that's foolish

instead of destroying old coins simply because they are p2pk how about leave them to stay where they are and if some hacker steals them and moves them then that would be the old coins punishment.

but intentionally obliterating the coins (remove from circulation) is not ethical and not in any way good for anyone. and affects fungibility if its made ok to destroy coins on a whim of fear. especially if the act they are performing out of fear is the same/worse act as they are fearing.

nah its less than 46% are explicitly voting for.. and as you should know the 46% are only implicitly voting without knowing why. so logically less are actually explicitly voting for it.

also some of those 46% are also people hoping gmaxwell, luke jr stick to their word of eventually doing a dynamic block code released like they promised in 2015-2016.


you are just reading the glossy leaflet. try understanding LN properly and the things LN code has in it to tweak it towards hubs.
its more centralised than you think,

even if you have a private channel with another person(non LN hub connected.. essentially just a plain multisig) you are automatically no longer using the permissionless ethos of bitcoin. you are required to get authorisation by the other party (dual signing).
but if you are in an LN hub and hop network, then your even more stuck into the terms of the hub and requirements of permissions of others just to move your value.
its worth you running some scenarios with an objective logical hat on and not a fanboy hat

should you do some research you will learn that these authorised payments come with terms and conditions. (CLTV=similar to banks 3-5day funds available / block reward maturity) .. (CSV revokes = similar to bankers chargebacks)

its time you stop repeating the sales pitch you have read else where (everything you have said is not original) and try researching beyond the words you have been taught to repeat.

but please enjoy your cup of tea and use the time to not think up some silly insult or fud doomsday you remember reading elsewhere. and instead take a step back and do some independent research.

the minority (blockstream paid) set the rules, they after all are the administrators of the mailing list, IRC, github and tech category of this forum. its the majority (unpaid interns) that follow the blockstream devs desires out of loyalty, trust and self desire that if they show their helpfulness to the blockstream crew, then hopefully blockstream will employ them

i understand your opinion of how things 'should be' but reality is much different

we are no longer in the independent codebase area of 2009-2013. things have changed since big fiat pockets have started throwing money and employment terms in dev's directions

2013-2014 is transparently clear as the time when it all flipped around. and it has not been the same since

though i like the idea, rationally we will just end up seeing sheep making several accounts so that they can post under lots of different usernames.
this also needs to be reigned in and managed. as there are alot of spammers repeating the same fake doomsdays they lack understanding of , but hope if they show X people repeating them, people will sheep follow them into the wolves den

when you throw out statements that are repeats of other people. i can tell your not checking what your saying.
70% chinese LOL. did you even check. by this i mean properly.
or just copying someone you "trust" because they said it on /r/bitcoin.

put it this way.
antpool sits at 18%.. but less than 10% is actually in china
also. slush pool is managed by a guy from thailand. where the hashrate is a mix of different people
BTCC has stratums in many countries
f2pool says 12.6 but is actually under 12% in china.
BW is not solely in china either.

and now the big thing.
even if they are in a country. there are 1.3billion people in that country. all separated by thousands of miles of land mass, separated by different companies and all the pools are competing against each other.
if they wanted to collude they would be in one pool.

all pools do is collate the data. it is the nodes that validate it meets the rules.
if pools attempted something the nodes disagreed with. then the pools attempt would get orphaned. boom gone, bye bye. pool wasted time for nothing trying something that doesnt fit the rules of consensus

so dont even try to use the fake "hey everyone look at the pools they are the government". especially if you have not looked passed the repeated empty speaches of the Fudsters that actually want to centralise bitcoin into LN commercial hubs, by distracting people with empty drama

to mitigate spam attack is easy. it does not require large fee's and the hope a spammer will stop. while that same crap fee rules hinder honest and ethical people.

after all if they think raising the fee will make spammers wait an hour+ instead of just sending in the very next block, they are fooling themselves. its simple. just have a tx maturity. so funds cant be respent straight away. that way only coins with some amount of confirms get in and everyone gets a fair go.

after all theres not many reasons for normal people to move funds every ~10 minutes, repeating for hours non stop. so why let the fees jump up while still spamming the network by letting it happen rather than let the transactions cool down a bit, to give other transactors a chance to get theirs confirmed honestly

EG change the 'priority' calculation to really emphasise the age more.
EG add a 1-6 block maturity period (like the block reward)
EG let the fee increase more if people repeatedly send coins less than a couple confirms old.

meaning someone spending only once a day gets treated better than someone trying to spam every block

its easy to think of many many ways to mitigate spam, without needing to use/abuse fee's to achieve it and where fee's have the actual intent for their current purpose. of hurting spammers

it takes just months to manufacture a chip.

it takes years months to announce, implement code and then more months to then get activation (consent) for the change.
do you think manufacturers would wait till the last minute of activation day before making an asic.. or would they begin work months earlier when a change is announced.

think rationally.

seems you have eaten the scripted racist rhetoric. and not actually done individual research into the truth.
maybe best you spend more time doing independant research and come to your own opinion then just joining the r/bitcoin script following regime of just repeating what others have said.

come on think rationally. seems you think location has meaning. when infact its who sets the rules that counts.
the real centralisation is where 12 banker paid devs and their 90 spellchecking interns thing they should be kings and central to bitcoin.. rather than having diversity

while those at blockstream are telling you to look at china. they want you to just look away from what they are actually doing and blindly(beause your not checking) "trust" them

the main issue of bitcoin is usability.

it comes in 2 forms..
1. core dvs have put a 2 year hold on any REALISTIC long term strategy for this, and instead wasted time on a one time small gesture.
2. user front end ease of use.

obviously dynamic blocks is the best suitable solution for number 1 because the blocks increment in small natural amounts nods can by consensus agree is acceptable (oh and yea ignore the fake doomsdays that dynamic leads to gigabyte blocks by midnight. thats the foolish core dev scare stories to avoid scaling bitcoin)

as for the second option. although there is not much if any chatter about it. hardware wallets need to be revolutionised to not need computers attached and browser extensions downloaded to function.. and also not need lengthy public keys and decimal values typed in just to make tx's.. so imagine this as the 'killer app' of future bitcoin use.

ok lets play your scenario out shall we..

you do this massive change.. thus needing to also knock down the difficulty back down to low numbers that a gpu can hand again..(security risk again)
but guess what ASIC manufacturers would have already of made a SHA3 ASIC... and the ASICs continue winning.

meaning.. it has not changed a thing. apart from a month of drama until things are back in the same place as before

seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not thought about it very hard.
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not actually understood the problem
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not actually run any scenarios
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented only care about giving control over to blockstream but dont realise what would actually happen or the downsides of changing things just for the sake of appeasing blockstream commercial services

your actively blocking classic and unlimited nodes?

so you dont want diverse decentralisation. you want controlled system that avoids consensus.
i now wonder who told you to block anything thats not core..

you do realise in a true decentralised network having say XX different implementations from different teams is a security advantage.

EG if you only read news from one news source. they dictate what you think and know. reading news from different sources atleast lets you be more informed and double check whats been handed to you

the only reason you should block a node is if its DDoSing you. not because of the brand.

ok
lets straighten out the details

BANKS cant and wont get involved with something they cannot control.
so forget about banks getting in heavy with bitcoin.

BANKS will make their own chains and tether them to the IMF's hyperledger, to be inline with the laws that suppose to mitigate their risks by having control (yes having control can with bankers greed do the opposite, but they and governments wont let it be greed with no control at all)

PEOPLE eg citizens of india are not BANKS. people can choose to rmain holding fiat and be moved to the hyperledger project without knowledge of the change of how their fiat has changed. or they can choose to use bitcoin.

dont expect BANKS to get into bitcoin. but do expect PEOPLE to get into bitcoin.