im not talking about connection slots. im talking about being a full part of the network. more so im on about validation and access to full data.

---

but to answer your opinion when it comes to connection counts

the less connections you have the more hops(relays) data has to do to reach everyone

EG if 74 nodes had 74 connections each. the data will reach all nodes in one hop.. 74*74=5476
anything below 74 wont be enough to reach all the 5400 in one hop. some will require a couple hops
however there is a big leap with less nodes.
18 nodes connected to 18 nodes connected to 18 nodes can reach everyone in 2 hops
9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes can reach everyone in 3 hops
6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes can reach everyone in 4 hops

so athough having 6 connections, and moving it to 9 connections (if they all done it) gets everyone having the data in 3 instead of 4 hops

trying to get everyone having the data within the next hop requires 74 connections+

so many deem this as being a bottleneck if some of them 74 nodes are not then passing it onto 74 nodes themselves

i personally dont see a reason to need 125 connections as a default but if everyone had just 6 connections.. they are just causing data to need to bounce around a bit longer then whats deemed most efficient.

---

though to counter that. only 75 nodes need to connect to 75 nodes each... meaning the other 5300 nodes RECEIVING it can do whatever the hell they like because the data would have already been received by the time the other nodes wanna play funny business about how many they should connect to

and this is where i feel core are re-inventing the 'supernode' concept. using things like their 'fibre' brand.
lets say they have 80 specific nodes with 80 connections each . everyone gets the data in one hop.

leaving everyone else free to loop it through however many/little they want

though good for data migration, it does then make 'fibre' the gate keepers of data if they are the centre of the distribution network

the real foolish thing is. even if there was a way to eliminate all fake nodes.

we will see a fight over how much they can/should earn.
we will start to see nodes rejecting and refusing to relay peoples transactions unless they get some income.
then it will be a fight over how much income.

some will want ~$15/hr (0.02btc per hour for ~2500tx) which works out as 0.00000133/tx
but thats just for one nodes income. lets say there were 5400 nodes

suddenly that 0.0072btc just to pay the nodes to relay the transactions, before even thinking about it reaching a mining pools mempool and the mining pools tx fee for miners

id say let LN go commercial and be the paypal2.0 with its CLTV/CSV payment held(maturity)/chargeback mechanisms and fee's. as a side option

and leave bitcoins mainnet as far away from economic game theory as possible.
bring the mainnet back to using code rules for priority and slow down the fee war to work over decades not months

and how would they get paid..

suddenly a 1in 2 out becomes a 1in 5400 out transaction?!?. where 5398 outs are paying nodes a few sats each.. um no thanks

im all for people trying to make a buck with LN. because that is just a side option much like using blockchain.info or coinbase.com... but trying to turn bitcoins onchain mainnet into something commercial will cause issues for real utility of the mainnet.. so again no thanks

all i can see happening is a re-ignition of what happened in the mining pool emergence. instead of 1 node 1cpu.. we start seeing people running multiple nodes and multiple computers. and becoming node farms

but declaring an spv node and a pruned node as being the same as a full node makes people not want to be a full node because they are lulled into the delusion that theres no point being a full node.

much like core lulling people into the false belief they dont need to upgrade when segwit is activated.

full nodes are full nodes for a reason.

incentivizing nodes just makes TX fee's rise. adding barriers of entry.
incentivizing nodes just creates sybil attacks (one person running several nodes to increase earnings)

it doesnt cost alot to run a computer. you just turn it on and leave it on.

the only people it does cost are the childish mo-fo's that run it from a cloud service because they dont want their parents finding out.

if you dont have a basic computer at home. then dont run a full node. we should not be incentivizing people to run nodes on cloud services like amazon. otherwise it begins to defeat the point of being a distributed decentralized network if the majority are all running on amazon

d-wave is real.. but the "quantum" sci fi story promotion is exaggerated

if you peal away the science fiction and look at the reality. all it simply means is instead of 0volt=no 1volt=yes binary.. they are now instead of having an on off yes no 2 choice.. their "switch" is a dimmer switch. EG 0.33v =third option 0.66v=fourth choice

thats it in a nutshell..

instead of yes and no. they have a third and fourth option. and now lots of people are thinking how to use this.

its called a wave because instead of binary which on an oscilator looks like steps/platforms. by having a gradient in between its more of a wave shape
0 1 2 3 2 1 0
instead of
0      1      0
EG
8 digit binary(2 settings)
0-256 options

8 digit dwave(4 settings)
0-65536 options

this can be useful where binary or hex logic can be improved 2 fold.
0000-3333 translates to 2 binary bytes(00000000-11111111)
00-33-00-33 translates to 4 hex (0-F-0-F)

so as i said before d-wave only handles binary logic problems 2x fold

but things like vectors and other non direct binary... going from 256 possibilities to 65536 possibilities opens more oppertunities.

yea the d-wave CEO goes a little overboard in the sci-fi department. but i think that is more business magic to hide thier secret sauce to not get competitors while they are still experimenting

i remember lauda getting very excited about a game "world of tanks" accepting bitcoin as payment.. but soon after he went very quiet and dismissive when reality sunk in, that players would have a headache actually trying to buy things with it.

lauda's mindset is a road with a pot-hole every 100 yards is still a fine and working road because all he can see is cars driving on it. he has no concept of the axel/suspension damage the pot holes can cause or the wheel rim damage. or even just the discomfort to the people in the cars.
to him he would not care about repairing a road. he would rather make people be detoured to a parking lot and then commute by bus(LN)

downside of just an NFC chip is that it transmits one message at a time. so something in your arm without any 'processing' ability will end up just transmitting a private key. allowing any receiver to be the signer.

a better concept is either wait for microchips to have the power to see an unspent, sign a tx and send out only the signed tx, to be implanted. or make a device that can do it .. like a wristband.. that doesnt need to be USB cabled to a PC and doesnt need browser plug-ins/desktop clients to manage the receiving/sending.

that way the private key is always protected and also you dont need a pc for your own use to send a tx.
also you dont need something implanted by your doctor.

however.
i dont see an implant right now being a payment mechanism itself.. i do see an implant in the wrist can be locked to a password so that your wristband only functions when you are the one wearing it.

i hope you realise that china are ahead of the game, but seems some think china's modern industrial culture is actually just mud huts using windows98 sat beside rice fields, running on dialup. where electric is generated from peasants turning a wheel

although BU is one interpretation/bip of dynamic blocks. there are several different ones.
most pools are not even gonna raise a flag unless there is a clear way to implement it that is agreed by the community

and thats part of the issue. core dominate the bip acceptance log. core dominate the mailing list and so they are muddying the water while delaying their own implementation.

because consensus needs the node network to be ready first there needs to be a clear available release by the major implementation 'brands' so core holding back means most pools are just gonna wait it out.

what would be interesting is the core excuses why the delay of segwit happens, afterall they cant blame 75% undecided vote on a 10% opposition.
and it will get to a point where they can no longer blame it on the undecided needing time to review.

after all CSV got accepted in 4 weeks.(purple and green)


interesting to see the CSV initial unreviewed leap was at 40%-45%... taking 4 weeks to activate. where as segwit is 20%-25%

main fake doomsday

"today bitcoins 7 years of world wide borderless transactions of millions of people is huge"
"file storage will need data centres in the next dacade"
"file storage wont grow fast enough to cope"

..
yea todays accumulation of 7 years bitcoin data is the size of........ a fingernail,
grow up and stop crying

bitcoin is not just this forum or a signature campaign

if you have skills then look at career sections of bitcoin businesses and apply for a job
if you prefer to run your own business, then find a product that people want to buy and price it in bitcoin
if you are more of a talker then watch video's of andreas antonopoulus and other bitcoin 'talks' and learn about bitcoin so you too can start your own conference tour

if your skills are coding and want to start your own business, then find a e-service you feel that is missing and provide it.

bitcoin is a real currency much like any other.

bitcoin has no arms and legs or a mouth. it is just code.
if you expect some bitcoin dev to get on a plane to come to the city and do some big speach. think again.

however think about this.
YOU can be the big thing your city needs. you can start the ball rolling in your city. if you notice something bitcoin can be useful for, you should be the one that brings it to your city.

at the moment you say your city is empty of bitcoin. this means you have no competition, no one else there to cause you pressure.
so feel free to do your part and get your city motivated.

awww isnt that cute. defending maxwell by not considering him a queen, and not even suggesting to add him to the list.
as for me. lol you have no idea what fud is.
even when stats, info, examples and real facts are shown you will probably stick your head in the sand with the only defense you can find. call it fud.
may you research the word cognitive dissonance and realise that when you have no valid ammo to throw back at a debate compared to the opposition, you are victim of cognitive dissonance.

what if i told you that hearn(r3) and gavin(bloq) and maxwell(blockstream) were all on the same side behind closed doors and all the drama was distraction to hide blockstreams involvement while the devs and bankers delay bitcoin, to then grow hyperledger.
check out R3, bloq, blockstream all listed here: https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

as for the drama
much like the kardashians. or other fake youtube wannabe famous 'couples'. publicly pretending to fight, but privately working together to bait a narative to give them fame..
im still surprised you have not seen the bigger picture yet to see your protection of maxwell is misdirected.

one day you will be the one that realises you lost when your god shows his true self.

anyway lets ask you the real question.
why not add maxwell to the list. after all if there is no risk of him being deemed a queen there is no harm in adding him.. or do you fear the Diva style drama he will cause if you added him.

to remind you greg maxwell has been a queen too. and while hearn is working on hyperledger, so is maxwell, infact so is gavin.
but (im guessing your thinking) shhh we must not talk about the bankers blockchain, pretend it doesnt exist untill the trojan horse is built

though ver has created some drama. the funny part is your understating cores side and overstating their professionalism.. they are a dozen paid devs with 90+ unpaid intern spellcheckers hoping to get a job within blockstream one day.

greg maxwell has been most vocal. he has been involved in R3cked campaigns. calling anything not core an altcoin and telling anyone not core to F**k off. (you choose if ** = 'or' or 'uc')

surprisingly when maxwell has had to buy pool managers with free all inclusive weekend social events, and done a lot of face slapping towards anything not core. maxwell still has not got what he wants. yet you seem to not be considering maxwell a viable drama queen

the only reason slush and BTCC are behind core is because the ownership stake in them pools has ties to blockstream (the guy that owns coindesk has ownership stake in blockstream and btcc and many other businesses)

.. again biased poll = biased results.

biased poll, biased results

you get a self fulfilling prophecy of results if you tailor the question in a way that leads to obvious conclusions

problems
Developers have taken off their bug fix caps and put on their highschool economics hats, thinking that will solve bitcoin

developers holding bacl scalability to push their business plan of profitable transactions via business services rather than coding a barrierless /borderless open monetary system

developers have a follow the leader mindset. once a road is pointed out they all follow. they have lost their open mind to take it in multiple directions

yes its developers at fault. because bitcoin has no arms, legs, mind or mouth. you cannot blame bitcoin just like you cannot blame a baby. you have to blame the parents

yes to less secure. but also
no to faster
faster is in the eye of the beholder. although fast to sign a multisig. the settlement due to CLTV and CSV is the same as the old banking/paypal system. funds are confirmed, but then have a maturity before they can be spend(CLTV) which means its like "unavailable balance". then there is the chargeback ability(CSV) that allows the other party to bypass CLTV and spend funds to themselves if they feel you have done payment theft.

no to cheaper
put it this way, the average real world person uses an ATM/debit/credit card 42 times a month.
LN's current concepts are to pay a hub to stay open 24/7 for 10 days, cover onchain deposit and onchain settlement aswell as the numeric representation of how many possible transactions can occur within the "channel". the upfront prepay deposit amount required to open a channel they deem as 0.006btc ($4.70) for 10 days https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html (as shown in the 'results'.

which we know 10 days is only a third of a month so 14 real world transactions average over 10 days.
which is 33cents/tx

i cant see any third world country or anyone agreeing to pay $4.70 upfront just to use a service for 10 days.

LN is not the 'scalability' cure/solution. it is simply a side service for moral spammers (faucets, gambling sites, adsense) not real people wanting to do their occasional shop for a loaf of bread.

again the devs are thinking about pricing bitcoin based on american income. not based on using code to control DDoS attempts. not using code to keep bitcoin open and border/barrierless for anyone.
its turning into a system only for the economically rich westerners

(disclosure: im a white brit with enough btc to happily retire, but i can atleast think selflessly to see the bigger picture)

i choose greg maxwell as the drama queen.

oh wait, i forgot this poll cant be biased against blockstream..

oh well i guess i cant pick hearn either, seeing as they are secretly in bed together.
umm

guess it will have to be craig wright, although he doesnt code bitcoin or hold any bitcoin.. so that rules him out too

hmm.. guess that doesnt leave much of an option..