google hyperledger,
this is where all the big banks are involved.
but they are not working on using bitcoin just "some" of the technology that bitcoin uses to mak their own private network

there are national banks, commercial banks
UK: Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, bank of england
France: BBVA, Société Générale, Banco Santander,
italy: UniCredit, Intesa Sanpaolo
bank of india
Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank,
UBS. Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken, Nordea, Danske Bank, Scotiabank,
Commerzbank, Deutsche Bank,
Bank of America, BNY Mellon, Citi,
HSBC, Mizuho Bank,
Royal Bank of Canada, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

and then the more private firms
BNP Paribas, Wells Fargo, ING, Macquarie Group, BMO Financial Group, Natixis, Nomura, Northern Trust, OP Financial Group,  Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, U.S. Bancorp and Westpac Banking Corporation.
SBI Holdings of Japan, Hana Financial of South Korea, and Bank Itau of Brazil, Toyota Financial Services, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs,J.P. Morgan,
State Street, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Morgan Stanley,

there are more. but feel free to research how many fingers of worldwide banks are involved in hyperledger. it will shock you

Max Keiser works for RT. im sure he will arrange something so RT reporters can still get paid (via bitcoin)

lol you dont understand consensus.
please dont waste 3 hours writing comments about your love of a core dictatorship.
if you really want to use your own time:
spend 2 hours researching and understanding and then spend 5 minutes realizing the epiphany you keep forgetting.
it saves you time, it saves you wasting time. it teaches you something. meaning overall you are better for it.

if you instead just reply wasting your time with your dictatorship mindset. then it appears the epiphany you had has been lost.
please dont waste your own time repeating the dictatorship rhetoric without understanding how consensus works
please research bitcoins consensus mechanism. it will help you

LOL
1. bitcoinJ (java) is running on the network, as are Nbitcoin(C# and VB), BU, XT, knots, classic and a dozen other implementations with different code and different rules set locally in their nodes.

2. the network is not in one place. its made up by different locations with all their different code, the network survives by a consensus of rules where orphans take care of the different locations that dont fit the rules.

3. a node accepting any block below 2mb will work happily while another node wants only 1mb. as long as miners only produce under 1mb blocks, all code can work together, and currently do. the 2MB proposal is not 'all blocks have to be over 1mb' but anything under 2mb is acceptable.

4. mining pools wont even attempt to do anything outside of consensus because it will hurt them due to the orphaning mechanism (make their block and reward disappear)

5. no proposal has shown desire of a split. they have shown desire of consensus.

6. you are avoiding decentralization and open system to pretend bitcoin is centralized to core. fail on you

7. its consensus (compromise and agreement) that allows the network to upgrade. without agreement there is no upgrade. it continues unchanged.

8. dictating what a rule should be and forcing a split to the opposition is how altcoins are made. by a 'workaround' to avoid the orphaning consensus mechanism.

9. it is only core that are suggesting(not as official proposal) right now they wont meet consensus and any opposition should split. your statement and other dictatorship lovers statement prove such.

you need to learn about consensus, decentralization, and open networks.

i feel sorry for anyone thinking bitcoin is owned by one corporation
the network has no owner. it has consensus. anyone who agrees to the consensus has authorisation to use the network


but here is your opinion summerised.

[blank] due to realbitcoins opinion lacking fact, thus meaningless

leadership?
seriously you running back down the (centralized, authoritarian, monarchistic, dictatorship) rabbit hole soo soon.

here, this may recover your epiphany.
dictatorship:
1 guy/corp makes the rules and the sheep have to blindly follow or move away never to use bitcoin.

consensus:
there are many rules (proposals) but unless there is general agreement by the indepenadant-open network. the rules dont activate
this requires the several implementations and thousands of nodes and dozens of pools to come to compromises until there is general agreement across the network, for the network to then grow

EG 2mb base 4mb weight
is a compromise where everyone wins

separately,

i would have said you were just authoritarian(until u mentioned leadership).
EG whoever agrees to the rules equally has authority to use whats within the rules. making consensus(the protocol) the authority, owned by no-one but used by anyone where independent compromise, results in eventual general agreement(consensus) to make changes.

but you presume ownership. not just authorisation(example: your github argument)
EG saying that core should be the only decision makers and own bitcoin outright and everyone should blindly just follow core. this is not a libertarian ideal. its a dictatorship ideal

in short when something is suppose to be international, without borders and has an ethos of decentralization. claiming outright ownership by just one corporation is the opposite of that ethos.

please dont run back down the dictatorship rabbit hole

if russia want to strengthen the rules of businesses that touch the Ruble. they have all the rights to do so.
this does not affect bitcoin. just the businesses at the edges of bitcoin that are located within russia or exchange using rubles.

but i hope russia and any country discussing bitcoin,
do not prohibit holding bitcoin from even being held, or
do not try regulating that just holding bitcoin, requires all holders to register their holdings. which i would say is next to impossible to enforce anyway.

from what i have been reading over many months of the actual drafts, they have been centered around the middlemen exchanges,
(though media and outside speculation has mis-interpreted the drafts to scare people to think it includes holders too).

my comments about your apparent flip from:
the authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship of wanting blockstreams dream of offchain as the payment layer, onchain as the settlement layer
to
the liberal freedom that people should have freedom of choice by expanding onchain capacity, to allow choices to expand unhindered
is on topic.

and if your sudden realization and epiphany is genuine, then i sincerely applaud it.
though i still have a feeling its just a temporary ruse. and only time and your future comments about your ideals can uphold your new mindset, or reveal it to have been temporary.

i have the feeling its a subtle plan to make a later point, that your change of mind cannot be defined in the left or right category, which even "realbitcoin" cannot define as 2 separate states.

but i truly do hope you are genuinely dropping your authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship. and if so. i truly and sincerely applaud your realization

lol firstly lets correct who started the drumming and provoking
this next quote is just on example of carltons drumming that started the beat off

theres loads of examples of carlton and his ilk talking about the blockchain "layer" as the settlement and then offchain/sidechain "layer" as the payment

anyway lets put a line through that

---

onto the more important part i noticed
carltons comments today have left me positively shocked and amazed.

firstly that carltons own words defeated him.. but secondly.. and more importantly
carlton suddenly today has had an epiphany and suddenly wised up to what others have been saying to him since last year
(though i feel its just another flip-flop bait and switch, wolf in sheeps clothing, short term thing)

finally carlton, after about a year of saying the opposite, he has finally actually opening his mind and accepting onchain capacity needs to grow to allow freedom to use for onchain transactions and not just using the space for settlements.
i say this with genuine admiration, thank you carlton for waking up.

i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where onchain TX fee wars are good and should raise the price of a tx.
i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where the blockchain should just be a 'reserve currency'/settlement for offchain/sidechains to be the payments.
(as displayed above about )

its good to see you are finally this very day showing you may actually drop your 'dictatorship desires off offchain being the future direction of capacity,' to instead think of bitcoin as an open network for anyone to use requiring actual onchain growth.

i applaud you for seeing the light.may you continue learning and actually seeing what many others have seen last year. and realise that your old mindset should be left in the past.

but please while your at this realization. do not try pretending you have not been the drum beater with all your involvement in "2mb is an altcoin", "bigblockers are invading", "R3KT campaigning", "2mb F-off", all evident you previously did not want more tx onchain capacity and instead wanted that limited onchain space used for LN settlements, aswell as demonstrated by fighting the bad fight to try getting segwit popularized to head in that direction.

but as i say i am glad you are now accepting that onchain capacity should grow to allow freedom of choice.
lets just hope you stay on this new 'eyes opened' mindset and you dont retreat back to your bad habits of the last 10-14 months

please dont go back to the dark side. otherwise today has been a waste of time for you if you are just baiting and switching.

"and if small blocks start getting rejected by new version than loss for them will be really high"?

firstly a proposal like 2mb base is NOT saying all blocks have to be over 1mb and under 2mb. it means all blocks under 2mb are good.
meaning old blocks fit the rules too
this is why XT, BU, classic and other nodes are running right now with the rule enabled and nothing is crashing. because a 0.01kb block, <-> 0.995mb block are all in the 'under 2mb' category.

separetly no pool is going to dare to make blocks bigger than 1mb due to high orphaning risk at low consensus within the network right now. and they wont do anything without high consensus. orphans hurt miners as it removes their income. so they wont do anything to risk that.
so relax the doomsdays are propaganda


the dry run is already happening.. before even using the node to flag a desire.. the code they developed, reviewed and audited needed to be developed, reviewed and audited just to get to be able to flag their desire.
and when 95% of them raise their flag they have to keep it raised for a while so the community see its legit... then the grace period starts for the other 5% to have some extra time just to be gracious.
its not an overnight thing where grace periods are triggered anytime soon.

while this is happening miners are doing their own review to then do their own flag as a second stage.
then when the nodes are active. miners start flagging their desire and at 95% for a certain time(1000blocks some say) then a miners grace period starts for the other 5%, just to be gracious.

again its not an overnight thing where grace periods are triggered in a day. it takes time to make code, review and implement just to even start off the %% even before the grace starts.

if all the nodes implementations, including core compromised to:
2mb base (majority of brands)
2mb base 4mb weight(in cores brand case).
similar to what we thought every implementation agreed to 10 months ago at the large consensus roundable

with activations of:
stage one activation: nodecount 95%
graceperiod
stage two activation: minerblockcount 95%
graceperiod

(taking many months to get to)
EVERYONE would get EVERYTHING they ALL want, and guess what it wont be a rush job.

this was tried a while ago.
the issues:
90% of signers didnt even live in an area the retailer served and a few retailers felt it was an empty gesture.
people crowded together and then spammed the emails of the company because the petitions were not working.
the retailers released standardised "we do not have plans to add bitcoin as a payment method in the near future"

if your going to make a petition site. atleast try to get people to suggest the retailers they will actually use themselves, rather then retailers they hope will create some free PR by mentioning bitcoin.

the best advice i can think of is not think internationally. think local.
find other bitcoiners in your area and host a meetup. find out where most people in your area shop the most and will actually USE bitcoin there regularly.
then find the most confident person or savvy person in your area who knows how to get someone to be bitcoin ready in 5 minutes, to go speak to that store.

usually the best place to start is a local bar/pub by making that the local venue for the bitcoin meetups/social events. start with a fiat bartab and gently introduce the staff to bitcoin. suggest asking the staff if they are asked to pay with bitcoin they show a QR code on paper they have in their pocket or stuck to the backing card of the orderpad. treat it like a game, relaxed test, trial. dont go to a-hole bossy about getting staff to do it. and then the staff can deem it as "paid" when they see a payment appear on a bookmarked link on their phone.
happily able to then take the fiat out of the bartab instantly. then let all the local bitcoiners start getting excited when you walk back to the table(s) and tell them they can now buy their drinks and meals with bitcoin.

works even better if the confident savvy one of the group is a bitcoin buyer. he puts fiat in a bartab, and by the end of the night he has bitcoin via the others in the group buying drinks, essentially making him the exchange while everyone else feels they are paying for their meal in bitcoin.

after a few regular social meetups the savvy guy can either carry on indirectly buying bitcoin this way. or help the bar setup an account with a payment service to get paid direct without any of the bartab funds going back and forth

then when you want to expand to other local retailers think smart. independent gas stations, independent grocery stores would be used more regular than a once a decade furniture /decorating store. also i mentioned independent stores because national chains dont give local managers much athority/ability to make new options available.

but in short. if you are not willing to do your part to make bitcoin useful where you live. dont expect bitcoin to grow legs and come running to your town.

realbitcoin.. seriously

if a right wing liberals is a left wing authoritarian
if a left wing liberals is a right wing authoritarian

then you are not making a point
can you stop using wings out of context..
im actually going to say before carlton meandered off topic he had an earlier rational point

quantum computing is not that efficient at solving binary logic problems because it is constrained QC to binary logic.
thus sha256 is not really at big risk due to only being what has been calculated as 2x efficient per process.

however.
quantum computing is able to utilise its new metric more efficiently for issues such as the elliptic curve.

so if i was told QC was up and running and about to try breaking bitcoin.. i would suggest changing ECDSA algo before worrying about SHA
though changing both would be best. but definitely ECDSA first

and not let the private key slip into other peoples hands. otherwise they have authority to sign a transaction

i was being sarcastic about your claim..LOL
having authority does not mean ownership

EG having ownership to a private key is meaningless.. a hacker using a trojan can have ownership too.
technically its all about authority of not ownership of.
as long as you don't give authority to anyone else then no one else has authority to it.

EG
you think you OWN your bank balance simply because you know the pin number to your ATM card.. and it has your name linked to the account
...think again.

even banks these days are not reimbursing funds if its obvious that another party used your pin number, because then you are the one at fault.
you can play mind games all you like and cry "but that money was in my name".. yep as an authorised user. not owner.
and now you know the secrets to why FIAT banks screw with people over, using the pretence that users funds are actually theirs.
its how they can take funds from your account at will.

if you have not learned anything of the real world then i feel sorry for you.

governments do not own the country, but they do have authority over it

facebook users do not own the content on their profiles. they only have authority to add,edit delete content

github can ban any user without notice. and the user is no legal recourse to cry "they deleted my private property"

stop assuming and instead start learning.

i think maybe its time you research a topic before you try getting involved. it will save you hours or days trying to whinge your way around the topic. by instead actually researching, you can make a point and then be done in alot less time.

and thanks for meandering offtopic and not making a valid point of the topic or even the meander.. yet again.
it continues to show your true colours

and to help others.

i edited a quote from DooMAD to help him get out of the semantics game carlton loves to play to try proclaiming bitcoin belongs to blockstream

The right to authorise has been given to the user by github. in short the github user is a supervisor/janitor and/or manager. not an owner

have a nice day,

dont need keys. the code has been open sourced. MIT licenced, and under a defensive patent licence which allows any to have it.

by the way it is worth mentioning that its blockstream that are the real people you are defending.
not the property owners related to github.

so dont divert your fake shilling to concern bitcoin. when we know you are only concerned with getting blockstream and the banks in a controlling dictator position of bitcoin.

so there we have it.
2015 carlton and other blockstreamers done their 5 minutes of anarchy by R3kt campaigning how bad anyone linked to r3 are to scare people over to blockstream.
2016 blockstream gets a payday from and working with.... drum roll please.......... R3
2016 carlton claims bitcoin is blockstreams private property


https://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/announcements/2016/03/open-source-blockchain-effort-enterprise-elects-leadership

i said it last year and highlighted it a few times this year. carlton is in the bait and switch game to get more people scared and sheep follow him into the wolf pen.

carlton=Authoritarian, not libertarian.
end of. moving on

right now miners are not reliant on tx fee's. the miners income is over 97.6% reward:2.4% fee (12.5btc:0.3btc) (reward:txfee) it will be a long time before the flip occurs where miners are reliant on tx fee's and by that time the 'popularity' of bitcoin should have improved enough to have lots of opening and closing of channels to pay the miner fee's.
todays 0.3 fee total becomes 50:50 after the year 2024 (2 reward halvings) but before 2028
changes in bitcoin valuation and also blockcapacity also change/delay when the flip will occur.

lets say we are in the future where 1btc is $6000 and say miners want $10k in just fee's (as oppose to ~$7,500 in reward now) per block..
they will require blocks capable of 166,666tx ONCHAIN at ~6cents a tx(<70mb block)acceptable bloat in 20 years, acceptable fee
they will require blocks capable of 8,500tx ONCHAIN at ~$1.20cents a tx(<4mb block)acceptable bloat in 8 years, not acceptable fee

im not going to bother calculating the 70mb block scenario of 20 years.because although the spread of fee's is cheaper its just going to make the blockstreamers knitpick the blocksize debate. rather than the point about fee's

now lets deal with the finer details
its worth noting
the average person uses a debit/credit card only 20 times a fortnight in the real world, which breaks down as 12cents a LN tx if the same usage occurred offchain within LN to cover the combined $2.40 open/close transactions per fortnight
so the presumption is for LN to remain open for longer to reduce overall cost of use per offchain tx.

which if people were doing the 20tx a fortnight. means that based on a 4mb block in 8 years time
UPTO 2125 channels open per block(2peers tx pay in=1channel), 4250 channels close per block(both paid out in one tx)
a fortnights lock of 4250 people. which equates to a POSSIBLE 8 million people using LN MAX (at 12cent/tx for their usual 20tx a fortnight).
a months lock of 4250 people. which equates to a POSSIBLE 16 million people using LN MAX (at 6cent/tx for their usual 40tx a month).

ofcourse, of block capacity was 8mb in 8 years the onchain fee per tx would be $0.60 to give miners $10k (allowing upto 32mill users using LN)
ofcourse, of block capacity was 16mb in 8 years the onchain fee per tx would be $0.30 to give miners $10k (allowing upto 64mill users using LN)

summary:
i see it as possible to work but thats assuming that
8-16mill active bitcoiners exist
8-16mill people will be happily even want to lockfunds in.
8-16mill people will be happily do 20tx a fortnight-month usage to equate to 6-12cents each LN tx, to cover the combined $2.40 open/close tx
miners want only $10k - if they want more fee's get higher and timelocks need extending to keep overall cost of use down
bitcoin valuation is $6000 - if its lower fee's get higher and timelocks need extending to keep overall cost of use down


and now lets wait for the mindless, unbacked up, unresearched blockstream defender rants that blockstream desire to cause fee war in 2017 instead of 2024-2036 so that offchain/sidechain are the permanent peg utopian future and eventually no one should use bitcoin onchain transactions because they see large fee's are a good barrier of entry to use bitcoin and a ploy to get people to go offchain. (usual bitcoin killing mantra)

if the locktime was 2 weeks thats only 2016 offchain payments are allowed
if the locktime was 24 hours thats only 144 offchain payments are allowed,
ill explain
EG imagine we are at block 450,000 right now
make a TX with 24 hour locktime = 450,144
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,143 (to keep newest relevant)
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant)
make a 'payment' offchain, locktime = 450,142 (to keep newest relevant)

issues
1) not unlimited.
2) if you make 140 payments in 30 minutes (current block 450,003 - payment lock now reduced to 450,004)you have to close channel and broadcast newest payment quick before previous tx become able to release funds
3) you and peer go offline/sleep. then its a game of who wakes up first and transmits the best tx in their favour, that has passed the timelock.
4) it is not a trustless system, it is a system based on mutual agreement.

atleast talking about the flaws will help develop solutions or users knowing the limitations to make smart choices about how when and why they would use it. rather then pretend its all utopia and every tx should be done on it, always and forever

but now you are taking the control away from peer-to-peer and needing a middleman controlling the keys to mediate transactions and be the only one that broadcasts a tx to bitcoin. which is no different then bank accounts or depositing funds into middlemens permissioned services



will be over written? if i make a tx. i can copy it out of the LN mempool and keep it. even if the node deletes it, i still have it.
The only tx that is important: is the TX that gets accepted by a mining pool and confirmed in a block first.
When those txs are agreed or disputed, then it executes the "master tx" that settles the account. (the first reset tx)

i understand and have no complaints about you, and im not complaining, i actually feel you are willing to learn and think about scenarios and are trying to learn.

all im saying is LN is not a utopia of perfection some fanboys think it is. it still has flaws and people thinking about LN should recognise some limitations.

LN has got some good usecases, but should atleast admit to its limitations to reduce risk, find flaws and solve bugs. to then have something that will be useful for the usecases.

anyway ive digressed.
in the concept of LN being unlimited transactions (flaw due to locktime protection) and never needing to close(flaw of broadcasting older tx once X time passes) that it is possible to double spend. by a user having a TV and his btc back. leaving the other person with neither.