the door is not open. it still asks you to use the keypad.
if its open then reveal they passphrase..

lol.. you do know greg maxwell, pieter wuille, luke jr, matt corralo and a dozen others are in R3's pockets.
by the way mike hearne resigned from R3.. yet the others mentioned above are happily making hyperledger for the banking cartel and integrating other corporate ledgers..

have you actually asked yourself why these same people are pushing for sidechains.. instead of keeping bitcoin independent as its own unique network

research hyperledger and dont be fooled by their bait and switch tactics to take people eyes away from their own failings

you do know that gmaxwell is paid by R3 and other agencies.. right?
you do know that pieter wuille is paid by R3 and other agencies.. right?
you do know that matt corallo is paid by R3 and other agencies.. right?
you do know that luke Jr is paid by R3 and other agencies.. right?

oh wait.. now lets see the retraction statement where R3 are suddenly good and not in control of bitcoin

segwit is a big code rewrite.. though the features offer something. the actual coding should not be deemed uptopian dream of safety.
nor should everyone running just one codebase. or have all pools running one codebase.

the whole point of bitcoin is not to trust third parties 'because they have 4-6 years experience' or 'because they are well funded by banks' but instead have a diverse system that self sustains the network independently. where features grow where diversity can all come to their own solution that all nodes are happy with(consensus)
decentralized, diverse distribution should matter more then features of everyone jumping to one codebase.

the devs will say its been running for months.. but that is on some sandbox testbed, never needing to care about spending real bitcoins on the real blockchain of 7 years worth of data. not even thinking about users headaches of having to move funds from privkeys to seeds to even be able to use it. or users communicating with the codebase via RPC

if there is a bug in one codebase and everyone is running the same codebase your all screwed and old nodes wont be able to defend against it because they would blindly accept the erroring block because they cannot validate independently. resulting in a whirlwind of orphans or at worse keeping the error locked in the chain due to not vetoing it out.

this is why the 95% is required and also why no one should run just one codebase. diversity reduces the risk of lengthy orphans while also having different codebases to spot a bug where one codebase might miss.

old nodes cannot veto out changes. they can only blindly look passed it. some say its a positive but you should also look at the negative such as not spotting a bug

as for using it, rpc calls have changed, the import key/seed mechanics and other things have changed so it requires alot of playing around before actually using. and ensuring everything works within your system before trusting it to be confidently used by your customers. EG deposit/reserve keys need to change and funds need to move and get re-audited by merchant services before they are happy and confident.

anyone shouting "its brilliant, perfect, it needs to run now now now, everyone jump into one band camp and let the devs control decisions"
are people sold on the brand and dont care for security or bitcoin or the network.

the core devs have shunned alternatives to the sides, saying
even after being coded alternatives need to be delayed by a further 18 months (hypocrisy when people feel 1month seems like a opposition delay tactic)
even ones actually with live code fully working on bitcoins network have been dismissed and falsely called altcoins
even gmaxwell has been telling other implementations to intentionally split rather then treating bitcoin as a community effort to help ALL implementations come to a agreeable consensus.
gmaxwell and chums have only been lobbying the pools. not the merchants. because all they care about is speedy activation, not utility

even recently the core devs have been downselling the proposition. because peoples care of malleability was about double spending.. which even with malleability gone, double spending can still occur due to new features of RBF and CPFP. thus malleability fix has not/will not fix double spend risk
everyone is screaming utopia about segwit making LN possible. but a flaw of LN (address re-use) still has to be addressed
thus all the promises of utopia in late 2015 are getting diluted and core could care less about capacity growth onchain. their agenda is fee-wars and onchain suppression to move people offchain.
as for the linear/quadratic debate. who actually has a legitimate reason to make a single transaction of 4500 input/outputs. there are many many ways to solve quadratic delays, such as limiting signops. thus avoiding large tx attacks

i think its best you highlight ethereums "fork" was an intentional split. otherwise it confuses the issue of what a fork is

soft fork= no permanent split, no consensus needed by user level nodes, only consensus needed by pools to activate
hard consensual fork= no permanent split, consensus needed by user level  nodes first then pools second to activate
hard controversial fork = no permanent split, consensus isn't set, lots of orphaning occurs because no one can agree
hard intentional split fork=  permanent split, nodes 'ban IP' the opposition nodes to avoid them orphaning own desires, altcoin is created

agreed.

id rather see 5 different implementations. each with ~20% popularity.. thus avoid a devteam 51% takeover

transactions wont be delayed but due to orphaning the risk is higher EG instead of 1% orphaning(natural expectation of the last 7 years) it can be 5% or more.. so to be safe its best for merchants to wait for a few more confirmations just to be sure a block wont orphan.

this is especially the case if you cannot independently validate every single transaction in a block by not being an uptodate full node.

its a leadup to being added to the hyperledger later.

afterall R3 is merging its concept with the hyperledger, and so will sbi

ill just leave this here

you can still use it, but using an older node means your not a 100% full validation node anymore. and you need to be wary of blocks containing transactions using segwit, because you are now relying on the mining pools and other segwit nodes validating segwit transactions on your behalf, rather than your own node doing its own independent validation of all transactions within a block to reject it if there was an error.

meaning if there was an issue with just one segwit transaction, you would blindly accept the block as valid... where as a segwit node that sees the issue would orphan the block that contains the error tx. so your relying on other pools to build ontop of it to be deemed as valid by your node.
or for you to see other nodes rejecting that block for you to then reject it too because your no longer on the right blockheight.

even if you personally are only caring about standard tx's... somewhere in the same block your standard tx is, maybe a segwit tx for someone else that has a fault and ends up orphaning the whole block including your standard tx

best to make transactions(blocks) wait and extra few confirmations more than you already do, before trusting the block is 100% safe

though i dont see their being a intentional split as that is stupid..

but lets play your scenario

knowing MERCHANTS have not moved to segwit. so cant validate a segwit transaction. they wont treat funds as being deposited as they wont see the signature to validate. the only thing they can do is wait XX blocks and "trust" someone else has validated it for them (risky!!)

so merchant customers would get peed off using segwit because their deposits are not showing up, or delayed for XX blocks more than usual. or customers have to send it as a legacy(old) transaction just to get it to show up, thus not utilising/seeing any benefit of segwit.

yes in a few months merchants may do a bit of maintenance and switch but they are not going to jump straight to segwit straight away. after all, the RPC calls have changed, the wallet ability to import legacy(old) keys has changed.. its actually a big deal meaning lots of deposit addresses need to change and lots of funds internally need to move, aswell as how the merchants server interacts and understands the RPC's

so merchants would get peed off using segwit if they rushed it.

so knowing bitcoinunlimited is still a legacy client that runs on the mainnet i can see everyone clamouring to use something that is going to work with merchants that has been publicly available for MONTHS.. not days.

and we wont see segwit punch through the average transactions per block limit. to see it as advantageous any time soon. again no on will see the advantages straight away.

a hard fork does not mean intentional split either..
theres consensual, controversial and intentional split.. yep 3 possible things that can be done via a hard fork.

soft fork is able to push through any change unopposed unrestricted if it wanted to..

with the consensual hard fork people can upgrade whenever they want too..
it only activates when 95% have upgraded... not the other way round.
its not 5% upgrade then 95% have to rush..

as for soft forks
not caring about nodes upgrading first means nodes wont be fully validating. if you dont see the risk of just pushing blind data. then you need to try looking harder at what your happy with.

come on do you really want pools to be pushing data into blocks that nodes blindly ignore as they are not required to upgrade, thus letting the blocks be automatically treated as good.

seriously..

its better to have a consensus upgrade where nodes upgrade when they want. and if they reach 95% that then triggers the pools to do their own 95% too.. then the change happens when/if the whole community is ready.

but hey. brush security under the carpet and just push code through because $75mill banker invested devs said so.

intentionally splitting solves nothing. it just creates corporate owned network by removing free choice of implementation..

but now the core devs have nothing to code, it gives them free time to code 2mb base 4mb weight.

personally everyone switching to bitcoin unlimited is just as bad as everyone switching over to core.. it removes diversity.. however core should have its own user defined blocksize option instead of node users needing to cry to core for more and having devs say yes or no. like some oliver twist food scene.
'please sir can i have some more'

no one should have sole power over change. it should remain decentralized and diverse. but allow the freedom of growth by not stifling growth for corporate greed/ego/profit agenda

we should not implement monero's version..
by that i mean
NOTHING should ever even come close to messing with the block reward mechanism. no way to higher it or reduce it.. apart from the built in halving mechanism that should continue doing what its doing.
again nothing else should mess with the reward mechanism now or in the future.


however over the next few DECADES the fee's become more important so miners will want to slowly have more transactions so that the fee's dont have to become expensive to subsidize the drop in reward per 4 years..

its better to have 9000 transactions at 1cent rather than 1 transaction at 9000cents.

and yes that might only be $90 but like i said the reward:fee switch over is not a problem today. but in DECADES so in DECADES we would hopefully be at more than 9000 transactions a block.
even if the doomsday agenda crew keep putting capacity of DECADES into rhetoric of this or last year. not understanding things grow.
after all.. 2 years ago core was saying 2mb bloat would kill chinese miners. but now saying 4mb bloat is ok.. funny that.
afterall.. 16 years ago the largest hard drive you could get was 4GB..
things grow and change given time

most signature spammers are not emotionally invested, dont run a node and have no clue about bitcoin. they dont know its an actual currency and just think its some facebook credit system they can earn credits by spamming posts and cash out to fiat.

when you start actually using bitcoin to buy things DIRECTLY and you actually get a real job being paid bitcoin to not need to ever use an ATM card again you start to see the real benefits of it.

he says he believes its correct, but translating between the two is irritating.

meaning he doesnt yet have an answer and is still working on it.
meaning level 1 is not solved. the cell door is still locked.

i tried it
6b7a8b7a2b2b1d6a9b8a1d1d3d7a1a1d2a3b1a6d5a8a6b1a7d5d5b4a7b2d9b2d8d3b5a3d8b2d6a7 b9a8d7b7b8d4d4d6b3d2b7b2b2b7b2a9b5b4d8d1b4b1b8a2a4b2a1b8b6d3d6b9a4a8b3d7d8a1a9a 4a6d7d1a5a3a6a3b7d4a7d6b3d3b7a4d3d3d9b4b3b4b1b9a5a9a5a3a6a4b7a9b3b1a9b2b8a8d6b8a2a6a8a1b1b8a7a1 a7a3b9a7a6b4d7d9b5b2b6b6d1b1b1b2b3b1b6b3b3a3b7d1b6a3a8b5b9a7a2a8d2d6b1a6d5d5d1a 1b7a5b6d7b5d7b2d3d8d3d9b7d8b6a

tried it with 3b and 2b.. no change..

didnt get through

note what i pasted my have now got carriage return added to get it to fit in the forum post so paste it into notepad and remove any spaces to be a single endless line of text (which is how i entered it)

though i feel we are in the total wrong direction..
the ABD may not even be ABD.. it might be NW.. NE SE  (northwest, northeast, south east.) or something completely different to represent the triangles

seems the guy saying he solved first level is just poking the bear and doesnt have the answer and is just trying to 'bump' the topic

bribing wont work.
no point accepting a tx of over 1mb into block right now even if there was a fee of 1million btc. because it would still get orphaned by >3000 of 5000 nodes. thus it wont be spendable and would disappear. and pools wont get paid a single sat.
so pools would just let it sit in mempool until dropping it.

if however the majority of nodes moved their limits. then pools would happily make bigger blocks even without being bribed because they know it wont get orphaned so no risk to freely make blocks over 1mb for all implementations to accept.

the only option to "force" this would be an intentional split by adding in some ban IP code to ban nodes with only 1mb limits (much like how ethereum intentionally split by banning old nodes from new nodes (--oppose-dao-fork))
but you are then creating an altcoin.

bitcoin unlimited and other implementations have never and will never want to play with an altcoin they want to remain part of bitcoin and keep bitcoin diverse, rather than handing it into the hands of a single corporation paid team, with 90+ unpaid interns used as spell checkers to appear open.
its core that are holding the limit down and core devs asking bitcoinU to split off.. (bad bad bad)

but until those holding the limit of the base block at 1mb move their limit. they are holding back the blocksize growth and will continue doing so until their agenda has been met.

lets jsut hope now that segwit has no more need to be coded and should be set in stone. those holding back the block limit can now concentrate on increasing the block limit:
eg 2mb base 4mb weight. instead of 1mb base 4mb weight, thus they get their cake and the community can eat it. rather then trying to invite everyone over to their house to all eat from their plate.

BEFORE october 2008 distributed finance was being discussed, this was done via cypherpunks and sourceforge and IRC. for years different ways to find a solution to a problem of finance without the need of corporations of government were being talked and discussed.

there were hundreds of different ways, but each had its flaws. but then atleast 10 security features that when combined in the fashion they were, became bitcoin.
in october a white paper was released to show a concept of how those 10 features were brought together in such a way that it just made logical sense that it actually achieved what everyone desired.

between november-december 2008 a very rough implementation was created privately and on january 9th the first block was created and several people got involved. hal finney was there alongside satoshi on day one. and within a couple weeks half a dozen people were debugging it and expanding it

within six months a couple dozen and within a year more kept joining.
and then this forum was created in november 2009 to concentrate all the talk into one place
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5.msg28#msg28

the rest is history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin
as for trying to escalate adam back into some god.
adam back failed to achieve anything. he did not even help bitcoin. it was satoshi that put the puzzle pieces together where others have failed and it was not until 2013 before adam back came to the bitcoin community to make a bank funded corporation to try to over emphasise his concept to pretend he was involved from day one.
yes satoshi used his idea along with other idea's from other people. but that should not make adam back lord of bitcoin.

its much like saying the person that invented the wheel should be treated as the lord and saviour of cars. even though the wheel inventor had no input into the combustion engine or the road infrastructure. or even directly hand crafted the exact wheel for the first car or even any vehicle for 4 years. it was just his open concept that someone else hand crafted.
then adam back jumped on stage 4 years later not to show what he done in the car industry. but to announce a new tire company.