i talked about ISP issues many times im fully aware i even broke it down into how easily it is for ISP's to do it


the data/bloat is not an issue.

you do realise that 1mb base 4mb weight is the end-sum acceptable and same bloat as 2mb base 4mb weight.. the difference is that its actually utilised better, not holding it back at 1.8mb(lean) to then later utilise the spare 2.2mb for other features, but instead allowing more just lean transactions through. at a metric of 3.6mb(lean) with 0.4mb for other features

also breaking the network into layers only works if the layers didnt have to rely on eachother
the downside of that. is that then really is an altcoin..

also by being completely detachable makes people more careless, and less scrutinising things because they think if everyone has moved over to the bankers hyperledger (like your hinting) then its ok if bitcoin dies because peoples funds are no longer on bitcoin.

again the banker endgame agenda, get people to not care about bitcoin because they dont understand the "service" they were directed towards.

my mindset is to scrutinise and look at all attack vectors of bitcoin to keep bitcoin strong. and yea i am not here to kiss some banker paid devs ass or trust a dev .. after all if they decide to retire (satoshi) have medical reasons to stop(hal finney) quit(hearn) or join the bankers (hearne maxwell wuille).. where would we be left when they are not cough "maintaining" the code" cough

we need to think about bitcoins network first. not what devs want, not what bankers want. especially if what the devs and bankers want differs from the ethos of decentralised permissionless peer-to-peer currency with no barrier of entry

^ his solution, ban each others ip to avoid consensus by refusing to acknowledge eachother....... basically an intentional split reworded.(gmaxwell twin?)


^ his solution, dont mention the problem just shut up and stand in the corner. let the bankers advertise uninterrupted

i can see where Holliday's allegiances lay.. very obvious what his desires are.

lol white paper??
blockstream stopped following satoshis whitepaper in 2013-2014.. even just a few months ago they actually wanted to edit it to suit their new rhetoric
https://news.bitcoin.com/revising-satoshi-white-paper/
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325

its only toxic to the banker paid devs that want to change bitcoin for the worse.. not toxic for citizens of the world that want some something that remains open and border/controll less.

---

as for the LN white paper.. that has been outdated too. the current concept does have penalties, spend-ability after confirm delays and revoke funding (chargeback) facilities..

but you just have to learn what CSV and CLTV do to see it plain as day.
think about the reality of end user experience of the 'service' they receive with CSV and CLTV included.

forget the shady buzzwords. actually think of real world utility and real world experience of using them.

blockstream=hitler

bitcoin is like the internet. its a network. but the services/browsers on the network, have seemed to be pointed more in the direction of AOL branded netscape with built in mp3 player. to dominate the internet
where millions use AOL and only a few hundred thousand uses napster/torrents

no longer are people thinking about the internet as an open and diverse network, but something AOL should dominate in because they trust AOL to do a good job to give them all the internet solutions there could ever be.

shame on those people especially if they deny who is actually paying investment into the AOL brand and what AOL's actually contracted to do to promote bankers alternatives (like when AOL got bought out by time warner)

replace:
"AOL" for "blockstream"
"services/browsers" for "nodes"
"napster/torrents" for "independent node implementations"

 and analogy applies

yep thats what maxwell wants. so his monero and his bosses hyperledger can rule supreme

the funnier part of Gmaxwell (nullc)
is that he works for blockstream.. who work for hyperledger(bankers altcoin)


as for the last sentence i underlined from him. he loves his fiat and monero income.. get has not stable bitcoin income/if any.
blockstream got MILLIONS of dollars for a team of say 40.. thats nearly $2million each if equally split. with maxwell being he cheif tech/supervisor im sure his cut is much higher.

he has lost all care and desire for bitcoin. all his idea's have been to push the community apart with:
intentional splits.. not consensual upgrades
increasing fee's to throw third world unbankable countries out of bounds of using bitcoin

now he is pushing hard with his colleagues for LN (bank 2.0) which has many and high fee's

going against blockstream is not disrupting bitcoin. its instead preventing banker dictatorship twisting bitcoin away from "permissionless affordable peer-to-peer currency with no barrier of entry" to what blockstream want, which is "permissioned hubs with fee's, penalties, settlement delays, and chargebacks"


permissioned: LN= dual signed multisig ...buzzword: 'bidirectional channels' managed by hubs
fee's: open channel onchain fee, LN swap fee, multihop fee, hub management fee, close channel onchain fee
penalties: not signing in acceptable time, denying payment
settlement delays: coin maturity after confirmation onchain (CLTV)
chargeback: output revoke codes (CSV)


the devs:


who they really work for and got millions of dollars investment from.. (hyperledger)

the solution is
dynamic 2mb base 4mb weight.
remember 4mb weight is still 4mb weight.. thus not causing any more bloat harm than core is allowing. but HOW that data is used within the weight and also what that can be utilised for changes.

both sides win and then let the freedom of how users transact decide what happens

oh and that solution does not cause an intentional split. just some temporary orphan drama if the % adoption is not high enough before adoption, hense a 95% is only a 5% risk which pools have already found acceptable

win win win

but segwit is not an adjustable seatbelt.
segwit is putting 4 wheels on a motorcycle to emulate a car, but get special permisson to use the bike lane.. to then advertise 2 wheel motorcycles in the future that require the passenger on the back to charg you for his time to let you use the carpool/bike lane simply because 2wheeled bikes are faster.

the person calling it an outright altcoin is saying it i presume. for the same reason core devotee's are calling anything not core an altcoin.
even when other implementations have been running on bitcoins mainnet for atleast a year.

the base of segwits code (the concept) did not begin in 2009 from satoshi's vision. segwit began separately as an altcoin as part of blockstreams elements and then tweaked into being bitcoin compatible version

it changes alot of things 'under the hood'
how data is stored on peoples computers, how its relayed between nodes, even how the transactions and blocks are formed.
though its bitcoin compatible. its alot different to the original vision.

many say if certain things change in bitcoin. like if stupidly its suggested to change bitcoins coin cap and difficulty retarget patterns to emulate say litecoin. then bitcoin is no longer bitcoin.. even if the 7 year historic data still continues growing and all nodes are connected to that same chain of data that goes back to satoshis genesis block.

so although its not an "altcoin" in the traditional sense (separate network) the direction its taking us in is far different than imagined in say 2009-2014

(thats about as unbiased as i can word it)

you do know "second layer implementations" are paypal2.0.. right

LN is going to be pushing us away from permissionless peer-to-peer and into permissioned hubs with fee's, penalties, settlement delays, and chargebacks

permissioned: LN= dual signed multisig ...buzzword: 'bidirectional channels' managed by hubs
fee's: open channel onchain fee, LN swap fee, multihop fee, hub management fee, close channel onchain fee
penalties: not signing in acceptable time fee, denying payment fee
settlement delays: coin maturity after confirmation onchain (CLTV)
chargeback: output revoke codes (CSV)

atleast learn why CSV and CLTV are going to be used.
do you really want to close a channel (like closing a paypal account) and see the funds arrive (onchain confirm). but then it not showing as available balance for days/weeks (CLTV maturity lock similar principles to blockreward coinbase maturity lock)
where even after the close session is confirmed onchain. that unavailable balance (maturity lock) allows time for the paypal(LN HUB) to chargeback(invoke their CSV code) and make the funds theirs

oh i must add LN are conceiving to add 'demurrage' concepts to LN  (minus interest rates)

we are still early.

but it appears due to dominance from bankers in the more popular implementation, would be like saying:
"we are using netscape and netscape is the only future the internet has"

internet analogy for future bitcoin mindset
lets not blindly follow netscape and keep the internet open and flowing, as we all know what happened to netscape

lets not blindly follow one implementation and keep it diverse and expanding,

it has taken the blockstream paid devs 2 years to not even yet activate a one time boost to bitcoins capacity,
during this delaying period. they have ramped up bitcoins fee's and done other things to cause barrier of entry.
 even when the community demand a scaled approach that naturally grows due to network demand not dev control. without fee barriers of use that are expensive to third world countries.

but in just 6 months them same devs have been doing alot more for the bankers at hyperledger

you may think they wont ruin bitcoin because they are invested in it. but that is not the case their funding is FIAT
dont underestimate the hyperledgers influence to expand while they try to halt and delay bitcoin growth/usability.

this segwit boost is a "token gesture" to kep pushing the rug from under us.
the next step is pushing us away from permissionless peer-to-peer and into permissioned hubs with fee's, penalties, settlement delays, and chargebacks


permissioned: LN= dual signed multisig ...buzzword: 'bidirectional channels' managed by hubs
fee's: open channel onchain fee, LN swap fee, multihop fee, hub management fee, close channel onchain fee
penalties: not signing in acceptable time, denying payment
settlement delays: coin maturity after confirmation onchain (CLTV)
chargeback: output revoke codes (CSV)


the devs:


who they really work for and got millions of dollars investment from.. (hyperledger)

ok for everyone else

lets say for laymans quick understanding..

that for using bitcoin addresses there's technical steps involved like
A->B->C->D

a user puts in A, it goes through a few processes and get D
knowing achow is going to be pedantic i will inform him i know there are more than 2 processes in the middle.. i just dont mention them all as they have not changed.

for mr pedantics sake i will name ABCD
private->ecdsa->ripemd160->public

again its not the full list of the mechanism im just keeping it simple.

i was trying to concentrate on an easy ACD where me and him both know C has changed.. mr pedantic twists it to talk about B.. where the stuff im on about segwits new HD wallet seeds (before he got pedantic)
and how they are different than the older traditional stuff.

so lets get back to simple stuff
A-C-D
private->ripemd160->public
changes to
A-X-D
private->sha256->public

again for mr pedantics sake i know there are other bits between A and D but thats not the point and thats not related to whats changing in segwit.. so not worth mentioning and getting to complicated over.

if you want techno jargon and white papers, go to the development category.
this category is for general discussion that tries to avoid techno-jargon to help the community understand things in simple terms

edit to avoid new post and told hold for prosperity

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/release-0.13.1/
^ oh look its bitcoin cores own website ^

edit 2:
ohhh i see now.. he is thinking ECDSA keypairs.. and not the extended more secure BITCOIN KEYPAIRS that have extra things involved... no wonder!!

im ending mr pedantic's offtopic misdirecting charades .. before he makes everyone fall asleep and begin to Schnorr hint hint

---

back on topic.

or just keep an open mind and ask for both, settles the arguments.

LOL
nah what you see is most blockstream hero's try to poke the bear and start debates to side step the solution purely to make people forget there was one.

such as

you are pedantic,,

to use segwit keypairs.. you have to use different keypair creation mechanism,
then say the traditional (private key that begins with a 5 and then used ripemd160 in the middle which later results in an address ending 1)
(yes it also has other bits in the middle im just not trying to overcomplicate things by mentioning everything)

the bit inbetween changing the private to public is changing.. for segwit

segwits new high deterministic seeded keys will have the new key making mechanism where sha256 is used instead of ripemd160

in short. a segwit keypair is different to a traditional keypair.

people using traditional keypairs will need to change and fund segwit keypairs


0.12.x has bips in it that are NEEDED to have even made segwit possible.
yes 0.12.x was not a final version of segwit ready code.. but it was a stepping stone to get segwit ready.

so include the 0.12.x's into the count.. and you get 4 downloads..
you are being pedantic, megatime

can i give you a hint...
you are being pedantic, at first i thought you were just a snob because i was not buzzwording everything to a satisfactory level of techno-jargon that makes no sense to common man.

i then thought you would realise i am trying to speak layman on purpose. not due to not knowing the techno buzzwords. but because common man prefers to read common words. and what i say is just as valuable to others as it is to just you. so its best to keep things laymen for the communities sake.

but now im thinking you are the one that doesnt understand the concepts, and are just trying to defend blockstream but tweaking things and make arguments.

goodluck in life..

---

separate subject
oh and ages back i seen you and lauda take a fee from a guy who had issues with bitcoin core. i see you didnt fix his issue and instead took his funds got him to reset his wallet and give him back the funds minus a fee you shared with lauda..

called a workaround. not a bug fix

did you do the right thing and report the bug to bitcoin-core. or did you just take the fee and walk away
i hope you reported it. otherwise that makes you useless aswell as pendantic

LOL i see your: offtopic ECDSA mention
and i hint you: ripemd160->SHA256

im guessing your forgetting all the 0.12's and the 0.13's

ill leave you to argue with yourself .. just read what you wrote..
how can something be compatible, but not compatible but is compatible but isnt.. all in 2 sentances

and how many versions of segnet testnet did they go through.. 1,2,3,4 oh wait.
your talking about the first segnet back when it was the elements design..


im talking about in spring, you know march2016.. spring... you know the time after december, but before may/june... when they were thrashing about with it to get it to be bitcoin compatible.. so they could possibly use it on a bitcoin testnet

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

so if it was bitcoin -> segwit.. like your trying to suggest, then ask yourself..
why do segnet(testnet) first, second, third, fourth, to get it then compatible enough to then open the bitcoin testnet to then see if it would work with bitcoin transactions and bitcoin legacy nodes..

again.. if it was bitcoin first.. it would have run on a bitcoin testnet first. and then developed to be more segwit-esq later...
(chicken and egg! comes to mind.) but the observations are simple.. it was segwit first

they activated on the 13th may.. but lets see when they actually organised some proper tests

so tests didnt really start properly until the 23rd. i call that closer to JUNE than the start of may.. oops i meant december 2015(like you imply as your right answer).. but screw it im a week and a half out.. boo hoo.. now your getting pedantic..
im secretly laughing by you "hinting" it was bitcoin compatible back before the december 31st announcement.. i really am
MOST tests that could be deemed bitcoin related (bar a week and a half) were done in JUNE onwards..

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/
they then met up on the 20th.. to discuss for 3 days what tests they should do
https://bitcoincore.org/logs/2016-05-zurich-meeting-notes.html
link is them spending 3 days reviewing code and discussing what test to do on the bitcoin testnet..
EG not doing official tests before this date

i say june.. u say december.. actual quotes say may 20th-23rd ish...before they started officially testing

and you think im more in the wrong?? please!!
december----/may/june whos closer..
im one and a half weeks out.. your... 5 months...... come on


i emboldened your words that explain my words. thank you its now self explanatory within the quotes. i even colour coded it
note the underlined future tense of achows response "will" and my future tense "after"
achow being pedantic yet again

ill add this just for fun
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/


if there is no change to the wallet... why withhold the wallet.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/


how many bips needed to be activated just to help segwit along.. think about it..

yea someone in 2018 does need to download all the 0.12's and 0.13's they can skip to the latest.. but im talking about people in the past needing to in the past dowload previous releases, to push bips into activation just to get this far.


FUD??? nope. just not pedantic nazi inspector specific enough for a white paper scrutinising committee.
but im still laughing you thing it was bitcoin compatible in december 2015.. you made me laugh so i thank you and wish you a good day