yes gmaxwell and sipa can play with themselves. but to be truly USEFUL merchants need to be involved. you know where bitcoin is actually useful (hint:buy things).

and over them months many things have changed. and in all those months it has not interacted with 7 years of historic data or mutiple pools or thousands of users.
sandbox tests does not equal utopian perfection in the real world. miners will still want to review and test the public release it before implementing it as their full live main node.
afterall the code next month is not the same code as last month, they are still tweaking it.

if the fiat lovers think that segwt should run by christmas. then where is the screams of grace period they were crying about..
oh wait they need no grace because they want everyone to just run core..
like i said many times in the past, the network should remain diverse. giving time for those to review and adapt the code into their own implementations or atleast test it on bitcoins mainnet before waving their hands in the air


tested on testnet.. tested on testnet.. tested on testnet..
thats like saying testing it on Clams or other alts... meaningless
it needs testing on bitcoin main net before settling minds can then say its safe to then flag consensus.
so stop thinking it should be active by christmas and atleast settle for atleast spring next year (if people are doing the right thing and checking)

EG even windows gets alpha and beta tested. but even after retail release it still ends up with people having system crashes and patches needed.
never claim anything is utopia until is has had time to run on the platform it is meant for.

i do find it funny how achow101 proclaims 0.132 to be perfect and well tested. though not running live on mainnet..
i presume 0.12 and 0.131 are perfect too... where even after release.. even after running there are still issues
 even achow101 spends alot of time in the support category dealing with crashes and many issues. with 'legacy' versions.
kind of strange to even need a support section if everything is perfect.. right?

and now you see why its safer to review test and use it before hailing it utopia to garner 95% utility

ok lets put my waffle into a simple question.
knowing it requires 95% over a month. where start of month needs to be at 95%, throughout month, and end of month needs to be 95% (3831 of 4032blocks)
are you saying mining pools should drop their "legacy" (nodes as you call it) at the latest november 24th and use only core 0.132 from november 24th because its safe to all rush to run before christmas? honest answer please

remember folks. its not just getting miners to allow tx's into blocks. its also merchants changing their wallets to have new keys to be able to "spend" funds if they too want to use segwit..

if its active by christmas then miners have not done any testing on the side.
if merchants have the nodes before christmas, then they too have not done any testing.
if 95% of "segwit" is purely core0.132 and not peoples own implementations of the code. there is no point having distribution apart from worries of power cuts and data loss.

seems the people that want it running before christmas are sounding like they care less about testing, care less about security and more about bitcoin price.

and ontop of that the majority that have this careless nature are mostly people that do not even run a full node in the first place
kind of funny that the "slow careful and smart testing mindset defending cores delays" turns into "before christmas, before christmas before christmas"

anyone wanting it active and in full use before christmas should be tagged as fiat loving bitcoin security hating nutters.
if those same people have previously shouted how any other proposal needs months of review and months of grace period. should be tagged as hypocritical fiat loving bitcoin security hating nutters

technically.
if 92% of pools started accepting segwit transactions into blocks (early) all that happens is the 8% wont accept the tx. so lets say the next block was solved by the 8%.. it wont contain the tx and ur waiting for a pool in the 92% to solve a block. basically the same game theory as 8% reject tx's with low fees and 92% accept any tx. its just a waiting game for a pool that likes your tx to solve a block including it.

but pools should wait for 95%+ to ensure there is little orphan risk if a bug causes disagreement, thus an orphan across the network

what concerns me is if pools just throw 0.132 online without review.
what concerns me is if pools just throw 0.132 without taking the code and adapting it to their own diverse code base
what concerns me is if pools just throw 0.132 online and everyone is running just one brand.

hard requires node consensus followed by miner consensus (2 stages)
soft requires miner consensus(1 stage)

but miners are not just going to run their code in november as their main implementation. flagging blocks..
they are going to review it and run it in th background for a bit before making it their main implementation.
and then there will be time to accumulate to 95% of pools to have it as their main implementation..
and then there is the month of all pools holding at 95%,
followed by a grace period.

id be surprised if any miner is flagging blocks 1 hour after code release. as that shows they are not double checking things.

FIAT wont disappear. there will always be a currency tethered and controlled by government laws such as minimum wage, which must be paid at X.. and taxes at X.. and court fines at X. all payable in one currency controlled by the countries national bank,
this is called legal tender.
governments and national banks will not change laws to no longer have control of legal tender(fiat)

the form of how the fiat legal tender will be held/used CAN change.
but it is not over night. things like swapping the paper ingredient of a bank note to be a plastic polymer bank note (UK and canada are doing this right now). which will in time be the very reason to take (plastic) bank notes out of circulation, due to plastic being a expensive/finite/environment concern due to oil blah blah blah.(yea its that predictable why they went plastic)
afterall if they stuck with paper/cotton they cannot say a bank note is bad.

next its the case of swapping 'dollars' and 'pounds' to a hyperledger coin by "upgrading" peoples bank accounts with tempters of higher interest rates. again taking time to move people across.. so that it doesnt wake up the sheep in one go.

but hyperledger coin is still FIAT

with private property ownership, proof is needed.
if property is valuable, then people prefer the lazy/easy route of letting some third parties handle it. to avoid debate later.
Eg getting a lawyer draw up a document. a Will or something to show a transfer.
and items that are sales, inheritance and income tax directly related. then this third party is usually the government.

however possessing the key to something in 9 out of 10 times is enough. chances are you dont need to prove who you are when you use it.
most of the time there is never a problem so you never need to prove it. but if there is a problem(theft/hack/breach of contract) then proof is needed to decide the moral person who deserves it.

btc does not attach human identity to transactions. nor should it. bitcoin should not identify who "owns" the funds.
btc should be a "possession" rather than "ownership". to avoid the things you mentioned about the rabbit hole down to registration requirements..

allowing freedom of use by simple possession. where people, if they really care about their own coin can freely, locally and personally substantiate their claim by having their own records/evidence of how they got it. EG proving the lawnmower your neighbour uses should be yours
vs
calling it private property, which ends up with more headaches and more official logging of evidence.

they are prepping their switch over to the hyper ledger as they fear people will defect when they "upgrade" the banking system

to possess is not to own. many people own the house keys to my home. they are authorised to possess the keys and authorised to come in my house. but they do not own my house.
it requires further proof of which key possessor "owns" what can be opened with the key.
EG if i can prove they have the deed. the house is their.

EG if i can prove by conversation logs that i asked someone for some coin and then use the ledger to show i received the coin with some conversation logs of saying i dont need to repay the coin. then the coin morally sits with me.

this is why i said possession and not owner.. possession is not ownership on its own merit. but on merit of other data

hmm.. you got me thinking
technically a satoshi is the commodity
as that is the raw unit of measure behind it all.. and 100m satoshis used to 'form' a btc.
btc is just a 'basket'/group/common name of 100m satoshis.
just like bovine cattle is a 'basket'/group/common name of the underlying commodity, beef.
satoshi=commodity
btc=product/name of collection


we shouldnt be thinking of centralised registration applications requests for moral proof by default.. but more so local evidence: of receipt. chat logs, etc
EG if ever in court we just show a receipt and chat log as evidence. no requirement of a centralized authority to store receipts/chatlogs.
though some could deem the posts in the exchange/escrow category as evidence and deem this forum as a central store of proof.. for those trading within the forum.

but thats just semantics of being lazy to not make your own terms and conditions/contracts locally and rely on just chat logs as moral proof

though the bitcoins own ledger is a store of receipt. we can also hold our own logs of "why" to cover the moral debate of who deserves it
especially with btc changing hands so fast that a central permanent store of current "why" x deserves z, wont work anyway in many cases.

EG coinbase just needs their own deposit history logs and their own terms of service to show why they deserve to keep the btc they possess. they dont need to register their T&C's with an authority.

though many can debate the authenticity of evidence if it has not been verified by third party.

but thats a debate that can be done in court if someone lost their btc to someone else immorally
evidence does not require centralization by default.

thinking long and hard, i have to agree.. so lets thrash it out to get a slightly better term

coins(btc):
"authorised possession" is a closer approximation..(still not perfect)
if you possess the key you have authority to use it.
an example of this is UK car registrations. it says "authorised keeper" on the log book. not owner. not user.
court orders can be filed to change possession of the car over to them

but then the expression "possession is 9/10ths of the law" which requires further proof to decide who deserves it most based on how it was obtained.

if you and only you possess the key to use X, legally you are authorised to use it. however morally, well that is a separate debate that needs to prove how you obtained it. to proclaim who 'owns' it.

this is why exchanges can run off with funds. legally they can prove someone handed them funds willingly to a private key only the exchange possesses, without the use of hacking. thus making the exchange the authorised user.
morally 'why' the exchange has the coins would side with the customer IF he shows he deposited funds under some good faith/terms&conditions that the exchange hands it back when the customer requests a withdrawal.
but IF there is no proof of goodfaith/terms.. then exchange wins the moral argument.

much like lending a lawn mower to a neighbour. if you cannot prove how you obtained it and cannot prove you contracted them to give it back. its not yours any more
or letting someone use the car. if you cannot prove you let them use it and cannot prove you were not the one using it, you pay the parking ticket

network:
there is no owner and no one possesses the entire network, there is just a common agreement of users to do things within some rules each have agreed to and compromised to, to communicate and use without issue. the rules are made by the common agreement of every node. not some central party.
like a financial trust. no one owns it. many can benefit from it based on the rules of the trust.

if you are able to accept data within the common range of the rules then you are authorised to use the network

commodity vs asset: the coins are not a raw material used for making other produce. so not a commodity. coins are an asset(possession).

possession alone does not equal ownership. but if you can prove how you obtained it moral. then it is deemed yours.
EG copyright/patent laws. just because you created a digital image does not mean its yours instantly. you have to register it to have proof that you are the moral possessor of it, to then claim it is yours

if used by people to have the second key offline(still in sole control). thus only risking 1 key online.. then great. they have an override if they spot a hacker using first key, without needing the silly game of RBF&CPFP bidding war using just fee's as the decider.

but i agree. if then entrusting a third party with the keys.. then its no better than just having a traditional priv&pub key and just deposit funds into the third parties control
good feature for sole control.
but not good as a selling point for a business

ok.. the bait (idea)

this is how i feel it is proposed.

the LBT podcast is talking more about making unconfirmed tx's reversible(while they sit in mempool)
think of it as a third option to what RBF and CPFP does. lets call it 2PO1P (2parents override 1 parent)
(all involve playing with what is in mempool before confirmation.. to decide what belongs on a block)

2PO1P is a way to not need RBF: which if a hacker sent a tx. RBF allows the original owner to send a tx with the same key but with higher fee to change the destination while unconfirmed. and the cheapest fee tx gets dropped out of mempool.
2PO1P is a way to not need CPFP: which if a hacker sent a tx. the original owner had to send 2tx's one with a change the destination. second using the destination with large fee to enforce the funds get to the change of destination by prespending the destination aswell.

flaws:
the problems with RBF CPFP is that the hacker has the privkey. he can counteract the counteract by doing his own RBF CPFP with an even higher fee again to change the destination back to his while there conflicting in the mempool.

it becomes a cat and mouse game of who can send tx's faster than the other with the highest fees .. which is just ending up as a fastest finger first game
same game theory as upping your bid at the last few seconds of a paypal auction hoping to be the highest bidder

now lets explain 2PO1P(2Parent Overrules 1Parent)
before utilizing 2PO1P you need to set it up
you make a transaction to yourself that has a X block locktime using a multisig address that is Nof2 keys, both owned by you.
when its added on the blockchain..the funds are obviously locked in for X blocks..

ok now that it is set up.. lets explain
the rule(smart contract) is that you can broadcast a transaction using just 1of2 keys.
but a 2of2tx overrules 1of2tx, causing the 1of2 to get dropped out of the mempool.

by locking funds in for X blocks to allow time/delay for the owner to see a possible 1of2 tx to still have time to send out a 2of2 to overrule tx
and this works by not having the second key in the same hackable location as the first. thus a hacker cannot do a 2of2 to start a cat and mouse game


ok.. the switch (idea)
at the 20th minute of the podcast they start talking about "businesses" having control of the 2nd key. lol (facepalm)

agreed but thats why banks are trying to flip over to hyper ledger and swap 'dollar' for a fiat-coin. to then offset the dollar debt to avoid bankruptcy.
because they know if they can bait and switch the sheep across from dollars to USFIATCOIN. the sheep will follow. and there will be no awakening due to bank customers not 'losing out'. they are just told the sheep dream of 'banking services have improved' to resettled them in the new wolfs pen.

however the surveillance and limitations of the new "services" will awaken SOME people. just like all the new banking rules like transfer limits AML checks and requirement of birth certificate just to have an account has woken up some already

the issues with 3rd world countries access to bitcoin is not technology. africa and cuba both use phones.. take african countries use of Mpesa for example.
but right now its bitcoins own "spam" transaction prejudice holding it back (the microtransaction debate)
for instance in:
Cuba minimum wage is $0.05 and a loaf of bread is $0.015
california minimum wage is $10 and a loaf of bread is $2

buying bread in cali' is just about acceptable as not being spam and costs a cali' citizen 3% of product (~$0.06tx fee) or 25 seconds of minimum wage labour
buying bread in cuba is not acceptable as its deemed spam and costs a cuban citizen 400% of product (~$0.06tx fee) or hour 1hour 2minutes of minimum wage labour.

moving an hours labour:
in cali' thats 0.6% fee($0.06c) to move $10
in cuba thats 120% fee($0.06c) to move $0.05c

BU has a flex cap (like what core agreed to have in 2015 before they later backtracted)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

BU has been running for months now and can happily still run if the consensus moved to more then 'under 1mb' because the rule is simple.
anything under Xmb is acceptable.

no one is saying the rules of the network should ever be 'blocks should be more than X'
but instead move the buffer limit to say
anything under X is acceptable.

core say anything under 1mb is acceptable
classic say anything under 2mb is acceptable
BU say anything below 16mb is acceptable, and locally(user adjustable) stick to a under 1mb flexcap right now
and then let miners choose whats safe to create and relay out without large orphan risk.

miners right now produce blocks between 200bytes-995kb which has only a 1% acceptable loss orphan risk

scenario one:
(only core is holding back, with only informal half-promises of flexcaps, with no eta)
if core devs release a below 2mb update, core users have to review what they are downloading and try it
classic do nothing more
BU do nothing more. BU user changes setting locally
and then the 95% consensus of below 2mb can be seen.

when all is happy and when mining pools see safe majority(95-100%) of nodes are happy with 'below 2mb', the mining pools then flag their own desire. and when there is 95%+ of mining pool acceptance, the pools make a block 1.0000000250mb (1mb plus alittle) to see the orphan risk.
if there is an unforseen issue. then mining pools go back to making 995kb blocks until solution is found.

if the orphans are low, they continue with this small amount extra until they are happy nodes are not crashing out and block are not orphaning to any extent. and slowly build up over time as the network gains confidence.

much like what happened in 2013 after nodes could fully utilise the 1mb rule after the 500k limit bug was found. they didnt suddenly jump straight to 1mb blocks. it build up slowly over 3 years

scenario two:
if there is no 95% consensus of an possible block growth proposed compromise amount. then everything carries on as is until there is a consensus that allows mining pools to try out the new consensus

even a noob can buy a legendary username and carry on using the ranking to do trade/escrow without learning about bitcoin.
afterall what you do with bitcoin does not equal knowing about bitcoin.

seems you cut out my comment about satire and the final part about IF he doesnt know how bitcoin works.
i have seen ognasty username around for years but comments like presuming BU is an altcoin are just odd..

ill take it as satire then

so your running bitcoin-qt version 0.8

or have you accepted that bitcoin is diverse and that other teams have their own branding and own codes that all work fine communicating together with other nodes within the network, to allow you to try the different brands that are available now.
first release of bitcoin-core was 2014-03-19

a scarce currency without a central bank. only you hold it. you move/secure it when & how you want

not sure if your being satirical or you really dont know what bitcoin is about and how bitcoin works to make such a comment
however
BU runs on the bitcoin network.
BU is not asking to split the network
BU is part of bitcoin

you seem to be a noob that purchased a high ranking username if you dont know the basics of how bitcoin works to assume that it is an altcoin.
learn consensus. learn decentralization and learn diversity.

RPC calls are primarily used for your webserver or other applications to get data from YOUR bitcoin client.
if YOUR bitcoin client is not set up to accept the connection from an application, then it wont work

if you just want to get data from "the web". then use the API calls from some bitcoin explorers such as
blockchain.info/api
https://blockexplorer.com/api-ref
http://blockr.io/documentation/api
but this is not for full wallet access of those websites, just the block data stuff

but as someone said.
opening general access to things like dumpprivkey on YOUR client is bad due to hackers then possibly trying to get at your client to grab your keys.

however i have a strange feeling you are subtly asking this question in the OP, not learn how to set up YOUR client to allow a connection, but how to remotely 'hack' into any client to grab a privkey of a client without them having to open it up to full remote access.

thus subtly asking how to create a hacking tool

lol so you link an article that is hypothesising the year 2020.. but uses out dated numbers of mid 2015, along to exaggerate numbers of january 2016 in regards to electricity utility so far. and then uses that fudged number to hypothecate something in the future..
lol.. guess the guy reads tea leaves too

lets break it down
ok lets go backwards 2012
2 PC's with 4 GPU = 1.3kw... but only produces say 1.3ghash
now
1 ASIC = 1.3kw.. produces 1300Ghash(13Thash)
and this happened in just 3 years.. no extra power but ~1000x (100,000%) increase in hashrate.
same electric but 1000x efficiency 20012-2016 'unit for unit'

the article linked in the quote is calculating old obsolete tech, so lets update it.
i do love their wisting of details to hide the details.. by talking about grams of weight and not mentioning actual hashpower
hmm so each ASIC in that articles base number was under 1 T/hash ASIC..
lol.. dang thats so 2015!
using mid 2015 technology to calculate power of spring 2016 hashrate to get to 350megawatt (facepalm)

but anyway.. moving on
at 13thash an asic.. with the network at ~1,600Phash..
thats only 125,000 units =~160megawatt (125,000*1.3k/w)
160megawatt.. compared to the articles out dated 350megawat
 
so we have DROPPED the power usage while INCREASING the hashrate.
.. enough said?!?

you do realise that there are 90,000 bank branches that use more then 1.3kw/h each. after all just 13 light bulbs in a bank branch totals that, let alone the PC's on each bank tellers desk and bank managers office and security guard station.(only 4 standard pc's add another 1.3kw)
thats atleast 180mwat just for the bank branches
thats without including the call centres, offices and bank HQ skyscrapers that protect fiat. which add up to more again
let alone the markets and private financial institutions on top.

inshort:
fiat wastes more electric "protecting" a system thats:
not immutable
where people can take funds at will..
records 'disapear'
money created out of nothing.

but hey. (sarcasm)lets not talk about facts that bitcoin is more efficient. lets instead talk about old data to make bitcoin today look bad by fudging some numbers fiat style and then inflate the numbers for the future too.. (sarcasm)