blockstream want to go offchain. guess who will be running the lightning hubs and sidechains..locking funds into dual signed addresses where the second signature is... guess who

check out where Greg maxwells wages are coming from..
check out where matt corallos wages are coming from
check out where pieter wuilles wages are coming from
that $75mill investment so far into blockstream has come from the banking groups.

think about it, research it and realise who is controlling it.

lauda, i see you are trying to break out of the shell of blockstream love. have you noticed that the bait of fixing malleability is no longer about double spending, but switched to just being about smart contracts. due to RBF, CPFP, GOP are the new double spend mechanisms ADDED. thus double spends are still an issue.

lol seems like you are buying into the blockstream rhetoric and closing your mind to bitcoins open non control.
i give you 6 months before you start praising adam back as your lord and savour and outright owner of bitcoin inc.

seriously.. you are falling down the wrong rabbit hole, and you will only be seeing central bank owned FIAT2.0 down that rabbit hole.

keep an open mind. dont be fooled by corporate promises of baiting decentralization while switching over to centralization behind the scenes

not bitcoins birthday.

more so bitcoins conception date.

happy pregnancy day bitcoin.

birthday is in january

unlike your last topic of the same title.
by mining different chains.. a different chain is infact an altcoin.

so i find it strange that the biased moderators would move your previous topic to altcoin section, when it was talking about an implementation currently and continually running on bitcoins mainnet and using bitcoins own mechanisms to stay on bitcoins main net to grow bitcoin. yet have not moved this topic to the altcoin section, which is talking about different chains

but hey the mods are very biased about wanting their favourite implementation to have dictatorial control. and have shown their hand of wanting to centralize the network decisions, by forcing others away from bitcoins mainnet

i feel sorry for the mod that moved it, as that mod is obviously not a bitcoiner or lacks basic bitcoin understanding. a third option is that the mod which moved the other topic is a shill for the banking cartel. but hey, how dare we call them out on their own bullcrap.

i now sense replies will return by those biased people who will celebrate your idea of you wanting to intentionally split to a different chain so they can double their coin. while also claiming anyone saying not to intentionally split, but to grow bitcoins capacity within one chain must strangely be a bank loving altcoiner.. (hypocrisy cries from the fiat cartels)

nope. generally the switch of the signatures allow 1.6x-2x capacity depending on number of sigs of a multisig address or multi-input vs single input.
this is done by splitting the tx data from the signatures
1mb base (tx data) 3mb witness(signatures)=4mb total potential weight

the "witness" part (3mb) which brings cores total weight to 4m wont be utilised fully straight away, but will be used later to allow new features such as confidential payment codes where the weight area can store this payment code as extra data outside the base block and inside the witness area.

thus, lets say we have ~2500 tx a block today for 1mb. (traditional transactions)
the average scaling proposed is 4500tx if everyone was to move funds and use only segwit style transactions..
4500tx:~1.8mb weight (tx data=1mb base... signatures=~0.8mb witness = ~1.8mb weight used)

but that leave the witness area capacity with (2.2mb) spare for other later uses like scrambling sensitive data for privacy.(confidential payment codes)
making about 4500tx+CFP:4mb if fully utilising the weight (base and witness area) for other such features.

however if we were to accept 4mb of data was no longer "bandwidth heavy" now that core have stopped the bandwidth heavy doomsday debate we could have had 5000tx:2mb(traditional).. or 10,000tx:4mb(traditional)

but instead the best average we can hope for is
4500tx:2mb in 2017 and 4500tx+CPF:4mb in 2018

unless we go for 2mb base 2mb witness=4mb weight - yes this means segwit still gets to be used for all the segwit fanboys
meaning we can have 9000tx using segwit but not having confidential payment codes

funny thing is core wants 4mb weight. but that 3mb extra is not going to help quadruple capacity to 4x, but instead only 1.6-2x.. and then the other space is used by mundane data for different features like payment codes used for confidential transactions and other Id information for hopping to sidechains.

so if core think 4mb bloat is acceptable, strangely now it fits their "needs".. i have to ask what has changed on internet speeds and hard drive storage since last year that suddenly made their own doomsday scare stories disappear.

even things like linear scaling was never an issue. you just had to limit the amount of signatures allowed per transaction and then implement the new libsecp256k1 to make things more efficient.

as for malleability. this issue was about double spending.. which pretended to be solved. but suddenly RBF, CPFP and GOP are now new features being invented which can reintroduce new double spend methods for unconfirmed transactions.

but hey lets brush it under the carpet and instead push people offchain.. thus diluting the node count by people not using bitcoins onchain network 99.9% of the time to no longer care about bitcoins blockchain and only care about running an offchain or sidechain node they need to use daily.

EPIC fail for the forum
moderators are either:
stupid by thinking bitcoin unlimited it an altcoin. when it has been running on bitcoins network and intends to use bitcoins consensus.. its only the mods that want unlimited to split off..

if not stupid they they are proving they want to destroy diversity by centralizing bitcoin to be in control of one team without a diverse free choice.

funny how this topic got moved to the alt section. id love to know which mod moved it.


in short.
to explain this topic

right now there are over 5000 nodes.
some nodes are set at anything below 1mb.
some nodes are set at anything below 2mb.
some are set at anything below 4mb
some are set at anything below 8mb.
some are set at  anything below 16mb
some are even set at anything below 32mb.

and they all work happily because mining pools realise that the only blocksize right now that is acceptable to all of those diverse nodes
is:
1mb right now.

yes that right. right now and for many months nodes have had their individual rules and pools have set their own arbitrary limits that fulfil the majority..
and yes they are all running on the bitcoin network. (so dont believe the bull crap about anything not core being an altcoin)

if the nodes refusing to go above 1mb dont change. then pools wont risk making blocks over 1mb..
if the nodes desiring below 1mb do change. then pools will happily make blocks over 1mb as long as the size of the blocks is acceptable to the majority..

bitcoin unlimited is just highlighting diversity and decentralization be continuing to keep that control within the diverse nodes.. rather then playing a script of oliver twist of asking one group of devs "please sir can i have some more" and waiting 2 years for a half-answer.

i feel ashamed of whoever the mod that moved this topic is, as that mod is an obvious person that wants centralized decisions made by people who should not be making decisions on behalf of a decentralized network.

but having random voters who have no desire, no input into a boring dare shouldnt have a majority say. otherwise the majority of danger seekers will just vote everything as too boring to veto it and can escalate into only the thrill seeking dares. thus limit the choice and become a biased set of dares.
it either becomes pure boring dares of just shoe on head by those wanting 'christian safe' dares. or pure porn or pure stunt fails.. depending on people who cant even be arsed to pay to have a say.
eg "show boobs for BTC" ends up turning into a porn site if the majority of voters are single guys. who as you say are not gonna pay.

or become empty because everyone with different desires veto's each others dare they dont like.

i think having a maximum per payer and then crowdfunding it allows those who want it to vote for it with their small amounts. thus everyone wins.

maybe moderation can be done easily.
by making the dares cheap(pennies per payer). but allowing many people to crowd fund it to make the total a worthy bounty. thus if many dont like the dare it doesnt get much funding, thus no one bothers doing it. and after X days/weeks the pennies get refunded.

also it helps make people not need to self fund a large pot of funds, while also increasing the crowds (popularity) by again not asking much from 'the watchers'

id say the person paying gets the majority vote. but others work as arbitrators to ensure the payer doesnt back down at the last minute with a lame excuse to not pay.

if a PR company can become self sustainable. then great.
EG make money doing conferences to help teach people about bitcoin, thus not leaching from internal members who gain nothing back

after all if the clintons and david cameron can make millions a year doing speeches for companies then PR can be self sustainable business without having to grab funds from those already in the bitcoin ecosystem.

the bitcoin foundation should be a information source for anyone to access. to learn what it is and to be explained at different levels. from laymen to technician.

EG one paragraph talking about UTXO with technical buzzwords. and another talking about the same subject but using the term "unspents" and no technical buzzwords.

also giving real information/ ration positive and negative expectations rather than utopian/cultist expectations
EG LN being a useful feature, but be wary of the flaws, such as signing the same address hundreds of times (the address re-use dilemma)

ofcourse it does not have to be "the bitcoin foundation" in one location/group/company it can be a consortium of diverse locations and operations. but most definitely should not be wasting its funds on board members/chairmen to sit in seats with gold laminated name badges to just feel important to the community while actually doing nothing for the community (like the previous incarnation)

AMA with pump and dump premine scammers??(ICO)
guess quality content is not a priority

seems your veering away from your mission statement before you have begun.
"bitcoin needs media outlet"... first story.. altcoin scammers
whats next JPmorgan? Enron?

if your want to publicise bitcoin please atleast stick to bitcoin and not give hype to the area of economy that scams people

there is if its used to defraud for financial gain.
most of the time its just civil. not criminal.

but craig went beyond civil after he got the australian governments money.

there are many sites like this.. its called bait and switch.
offer you one thing. but end up with something else

got to love it
reason they think people will use bitcoin right next to the reason they wont use bitcoin

$0.06 fee is not "cheap" for those countries.

the main gripe people had of the old bitcoin foundation was:
the members fees
how the members fees were used
where the excess pot of funds disappeared.

i think any new foundation should not request member fee's but instead make money from doing conventions
thus their income is dependant on 'spreading the word'

block rewards cover costs. fee's are not that important right now they are just a 'bonus'. but by messing with fee's to push the fee war eventually will earn them more of a 'bonus' later. so the losing money argument is short sighted.

also it doesnt require filling a block of ~2500tx capacity with 2500tx's to increase the fee.. a pool can have a near empty block and set the minimal acceptance to $1.00 a tx. by just putting ONE transaction of their own in with $1.00 and not add any other transactions unless they have >$1.00.

the theory of "fee sustainability" is only theory.. and not practice for atleast decade-century. so playing with a fee war can be done now. and actually is being done if you look closely

we have not won.
its stupid to think we won and do nothing more... its an endless marathon.
we should always be doing more.
getting 91 countries to get their ISP's to take peoples landline internet offline is achievable.

we should not be relying on "but they shouldnt".. but instead expand bitcoin to "but they couldnt".
we should never rely on the good nature of government not to do something but be prepared for their bad nature.

afterall billions of emails got copied to three later agencies before it even became a thing that users should encrypt their email.
even now people still dont encrypt their email. they just presume governments are not the bad guys and let governments do it.

apathy seems soo rampant in this topic. im guessing the many that are suggesting to trust governments as good guys are probably people that are not even running a full node.

they are not banned.
they are just prohibiting BANKS from offering bitcoin services. to protect their economy by ensuring banks only handle fiat.
this has nothing to do with citizens.