consensus covers this.
speculators: it doesnt matter how much you have. the richest person in bitcoin has no more power then the poorest
socialists: when has bitcoin ever been a single address of 21mill coins where it gets shared out by who has the best sob story?.. um never.

if you feel that "spam" should be avoided. then secretly you want bitcoin only to be used by the rich, under your definition. afterall a 0.0001btc is an hours labour in many developing countries. so it seems you only want bitcoin to be centralized to first world countries where only 0.01 transactions are deemed ok(first world countries hour labour).

sorry but 0.0001 vs 1000 are just as relevant as each other. bitcoin should not care about only the rich.
spam should not be defined purely on someone spending 0.0001. but instead defined by rich people doing 1,000,000 transactions of 0.0001.(true spam)
the cure for this is limiting sigops/number of outputs/inputs. so that big holders cannot make bloated transactions. and instead have to do smaller transactions in batches. which are delayed by a batch per block so that there is ampl capacity for others.

EG
not
[one block] 10btc->0.0001, 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 (1 thousand times)
or
[one block] 0.0001, 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 (1 thousand times) ->10btc
but
[one block] 10btc->0.0001, 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 9.9996
[two block] 9.9996btc->0.0001, 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 9.9992
and
[one block] 0.0001, 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 9.9992 ->9.9996btc
[two block] 0.0001, 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 9.9996 -> 10btc

thus allowing space per block for thousand different peoples tx due to not being able to spam funds to thousands in one go

you realise and know that "payment channels" is the technology/concept and LN is the brand name of one of those utilising the technology/concept.

trying to protect a brand name, even when someone is just using the brand name simply as just a laymens descriptor of the concept is very revealing.

its like saying people like to facetime each other on skype and you argue not to use the term facetime unless talking about apple.. very revealing indeed

protecting business interests more then cryptocurrency features is where the civil war began

coins yes. you have the right to own them. but the network and coin are 2 separate things.
try not to confuse the matter by merging bitcoin the spendable fund unit. and bitcoin the network, purely because they are named the same thing.

this is why people prefer to refer to the coins as BTC rather than bitcoin. to help show what they are talking about.

btc is the private property of the private key holder.
bitcoin the network has no central location. it is made up of ~5200 diverse nodes with different codebases.
EG core V0.13 is totally different code from core v0.12
EG core V0.13 is totally different code from BU..

yet they are all running happily right now all validating transactions and relaying them, validating blocks and relaying them.
there is not and should not be a single location/jurisdiction limit of a node.
there is not and should not be a single codebase. (even you have said this by having the zero day bug debate.)

diversity and then concessions to form a consensus is how satoshi found the best route to growth.
the issues are that those opposing using consensus 'pretend' to have agreed and back track later. just to cause delays
the issues are that those opposing using consensus will demand everyone 'f**k off' to dilute the votes into their favour.

however if we just accept consensus is the only way.
then we can concentrate on getting the compromise where everyone is in majority happy.
which should have happened last year. before all the back tracking and flip flopping about splitting as the option while crying that splitting is a doomsday in the same sentence by the same people.

lol
and this is coming from someone that has more than enough to make a vote under your proposal
so now you want "greed" to dictate "protocol".
so now you want coinbase that hoards 500k peoples funds to have a large vote. purely by holding other peoples funds
im guessing the US marshals get a vote too. aswell as whoever holds the bitfinex stash.. these people should have more power?why?
screw it.. lets get the bitfinex hacker or winklevoss with 200k coins each to spread the coins over 9800 addresses. and dominate the vote
just being "rich" does not mean your smart

sorry but those with large funds should not dictate the rules of nodes. nodes should decide what they want to have.
if the rich want a vote on what the nodes should do then they should run a node themselves.. (wait for it).. they already do in most cases.
which brings the debate back to node count, followed by a second vote afterwards for a pool vote.

there are millions of bitcoiners.
but the votes are not done by the millions of lite-node/webwallet users.
relax its not hill billy jack or scouser jake voting for bitcoin rules. its usually smart people doing more then just "spending".

they are going to full node users/pool owners (usually smarter than average joe) and the 'pledge' they vote for is not made by the users but the devs (smarter then node operators) where the node operators vote for the pledge they deem best.

having just one pledge is bad. one leader is bad. thats a dictatorship

these pledges have been developed over time, with compromises and concessions in most cases, to ensure there becomes no single dictatorial ruler presiding or reigning over the network. but instead adjustments in all the pledges untill they all meet to get to a 95% agreement. allowing all parties to not be a central authority but all come to an agreement.

but as you say if it was opened up to a uninterested public vote of millions of people. it may end up like the UK talent show..
voting a dog as the most talented brit.. twice..
or
voting in politics, a pigs-head f**ker twice.

but suggesting only centralized elitists should vote, is worse.

??.. hmm
alpaca socks are still in business.
bitcoin conventions are still happening and organisers are making a good profit.
domain name services devoted purely to bitcoin are still running
there are lots more examples.

the reason why there are not millions of "bitcoin only" merchants is because the industry/economy is still new and small, its nothing to do with lack of opportunity. just lack of adoption.

aftre all we dont even have a viable bitcoin alternative to googles adsense.. hint hint to anyone interested,

thats alot of electric to power a industry of plastic poker chips,

let alone all the skyscrapers, offices and bank branches of thousands of financial firms powering FIAT

start a bitcoin business.
idea one:
retailer
either using a dropshipper to handle the stock on your behalf or buy stock direct.
in many cases you can make 10%-50% profit on the difference between the cost-retail.

keep the profit as bitcoin and buy more stock in fiat. trying to get the supplier to accept bitcoin to avoid the 'cashing out' to replenish stock.
rinse and repeat.

if business improves, hire someone and delegate them to run that business and then start a different business offering different produce/services.
do the same thing. but now you have 2 businesses with 2 income streams which reduce the risks of your products going out of fashion or not having demand.

expand into different product ranges and find the one that gets most attention, if one product range dies down then the employee delegated to it can get delegated to manage several product ranges that are managable, or you can cancl his contract if you feel you can manage it all alone.

keep finding the best produce to sell.

idea two:
meetup/conference
find suitable meeting rooms/conference arena's in an area where you know there is some bitcoin enthusiasts. start small like getting people to meet at a bar/pub. set up a fiat bar tab and get the other enthusiasts to pay bitcoin (indirectly to you) for the drinks and the bar/pub uses the fiat. if popular and regular get the bar/pub more involved and set them up to accept bitcoin direct. (you can still be the background exchange if you want).
use this as your sandbox to generate ideas and socialise while making a little bitcoin on the side. expand on this by hosting other meetups in different locations and get to know how many people are enthusiasts in the area.
find out what businesses those people work for and develop business deals with their employers. if there seems to be a few hundred enthusiasts and possible business interests in the area upscale to a conference. if thousands upscale to a convention

in the UK the royal family.. as someone who shant be named would say.. owns the country by right. and has then due to the peoples wish formed 2 oligarchies. the house of lords and the house of commons.. to have the authority over the country and manage her estate. and they would par-lay(negotiate) in a meeting place called parliament.
the queen invites her chosen people into authority in the lords chamber and the people choose their desire for who has authority in the commons chamber.
the queen still reigns over parliament and has veto power over any consensus agreed in parliament

this is still not good because there is still a power house that can become onesided.

many people now want local councils to have authority of their own area's while coming to a general agreement of national issues within parliament. without the oligarchy of 2 chambers.

american version would be the senators meeting at the senate to discuss U.S. national issues and come to an agreement, while still having local powers to do their own thing within the national rules.

however i see no point in one guy "presiding" over the senate, one women reigning over parliament with veto powers over any consensus made

not sure why this has turned into a market valuation of gold debate. but.
the stability of gold is actually based on 2 things
1. the reserves of a country are known. unlike a bitcoin exchange that does not show the reserves and there are definitely not all ~16mill coins are on exchanges, thus supply metric cant be fixed/known very well in bitcoin
2. the countries are mainly day trading each other where fractions of a percent are profitable trades. so everyone is happy using bots to trade in fractions of a percent.
3. when you see larger blips(over 1%) in the price this is where large selloffs/buyups from country to country occur where one country has alot less in their reserve. and another has more which is something again that cannot be seen clearly on bitcoin exchanges.

some say the gold market is more stable.. i say its more predictable.

but with all that said the price of gold has nothing to do with bitcoins utility, security. so we should not compare bitcoin and gold especially when talking about bitcoins utility

the mining pools want more capacity but they are not even going to enter the civil war until the nodes sort themselves out.
after all a mining pool is foolish to make changes if the nodes are not going to accept them.

some lemon fruitloop tried to do a rekt campaign on mining pools by suggesting (falsely) that pools were planning a controversial split to scare the community into a mining civil war. but the mining pools quickly shouted the campaign as utter fud and that they would not do anything that risked the network or the security or even risk their own rewards.

mining pools want the extra capacity and some do 'have faith' that core will eventually do it. but this is not unconditional faith.

the solution many have come up with is
nodes: code, review implement THEN flag desire (taking XXweeks/months) to get to 95%
mining pools: code, review, implement at this same time.
when nodes get to 95%. there is then a grace period
THEN
mining pools: continue code, review implement THEN flag desire (taking XXweeks/months) to get to 95%
when pools get to 95%. there is then a grace period

by this point over 95% of nodes and over 95% of pools are all onboard. and pools then test out the water making a block of 1.001kb and see its orphan risk.
if deemed safe they slowly increase, until comfortable.

anyone doomsday shouting that "it will be 1.999mb blocks in 2 days" is just someone that is trying to prolong a civil war.

its worth noting that some pools already have ceded reviewed and tested and implemented their new rules. but are not stupid enough to make block beyond the current limit for obvious rational reasons. they are just waiting it out until the nodes get consensus, before even flagging a pool consensus

pre-emptive strike before then releasing the banks "hyperledger"

better to compare bitcoin now to visa 'XX' years ago and paypal 'X' years ago. (when thinking about user adoption)
then in a few years compare bitcoin then to visa 'TX' years ago and paypal 'T' years ago. (when thinking about user adoption)

trying to assume bitcoin has 1billion users right now is a flaw. and a rhetoric to push an agenda
much like trying to say cars should fly now, because in 50 years, x,y,z

bitcoin wont have 1billion users any time soon. so judgements today should be thinking about short term future. and revisit the judgement later when the reality of the future can be seen rationally. rather than 10-100 year hypotheticals, and doomsdays, which delay rational short term goals.

judgement should be made on reality and scope of logical and rational proposals that are not due purely to economics and politics. but rather bitcoins utility and security

this is where doomsday theories rather than rational thought comes in.
some want 4mb (core) some want more. some want onchain some want 100% use offchain. thats where compromises come in and finding the acceptable level.
this "terrabyte block" doomsday has been shot out the park last year. the current compromise is 2mb bas 4mb weight.
the everthing has to be offchain has been shot out the park. the current compromise is expand onchain and allow offchain for freedom of choice.
i dont know why anyone is talking about terrabytes, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present
i dont know why anyone is talking about only offchain will work, apart from the doomsdayers who want to twist the future to distract the present


there is misunderstandings and our misrepresenting of what a hard fork is.
ethereum was not a consensus hard fork it was a controversial fork.
ethereum bypassed consensus orphaning mechanism and literally banned communicating with nodes of different rules to avoid orphaning the minority. "--oppose-dao-fork"
it is actually Gmaxwell of blockstream that proposed that BU should split, rather than use the consensus mechanism which BU(ver) wants.

a consensus mechanism is what the community want to happen. rather than a dictatorial split.
consensus, everyone wins and everyone continues.
controversial, dictator wins and everyone else f**ks off

or to flip it on its head.
if devs get involved and help each other out no matter the brandname. and start working as a community rather then a fight for dictatorship
then consensus would move forward faster.

rather than having a merchant service such as coinbase/bitpay in one jurisdiction. those services should set up 'mirror' sites in multiple locations.
so that if they receive a cease and desist order. they can continue uninterrupted using their .au or .uk domains. (out of the orders jurisdiction)

same goes for this forum. and other communication platforms. to reduce the few days of setting up alternative domains.

as i said some smart pools have a few servers running to use as redundancies/backups. scattered over a few countries. again to reduce the delay in getting users back up and running.

we should not be throwing code (github), communication(irc server host) and community(forum) all into an american jurisdiction and then lean to american government to give permission of use.
we should remain worldwide, involving distribution and diversity to not REQUIRE permission.
apathy is the worse thing to have in regards to security and functionality.
but instead utilise the diversity to gain government acceptance to not cause any delays/distractions, on our open and borderless terms

governments cannot take down the network because the IP's are vast.
but lets not get lazy and think we are safe. apathy leads to vulnerability. by not keeping the network as secure as possible.

so lets be realistic and not have an apathetic utopian mindset.

worse case scenario:
(1) governments can take down this forum. the subreddits, github, and some IRC channels, and a couple other bitcoin sites/exchanges to cause some drama.
because that is only under 10 places to hit.

this will take more then a few days for people to try communicating with each other via social media to re establish a new assortment of collaboration of minds, code, markets.

but what i say above wont affect the bitcoin network at all.
however,
(2) governments take down the mining pools internet. because there are only ~20 pools.
causing block creation delays while mining pools switch servers.
this is a short term delay of under an hour. because pools do (well some should) have multiple servers(within their control but in different jurisdictions) to allow miners to "pool hop" to another server quite quickly.
some pools dont have a couple servers. meaning it will take more then an hour to allow their asics to "pool hop"

but what i say above wont see much interruption/delay on the network.

by "realbitcoin" mentioning my name causes me to get involved. like a self fulfilling prophecy.
much like asling people to do an intentional split because the asker is afraid an intentional split will happen is also a self fulfilling prophecy.

anyway
i am open to both sides. i am not in the blockstream camp nor the classic camp. i am in the bitcoin consensus for everyone camp.
i just hold a sceptical mind about many things. not a utopian dream and not a dictatorial desire.

i have said that LN and sidechains have a place in the community. but people need to know the reality of what they are handling and that we should not be pushing for everyone to use offchain. even done subtly to pretend its not being done. especially when pushing false doomsdays.
doomsdays such as "that in 10 years the blockchain will be many terrabytes big so that no node will be able to run it, except centralized data centers." are false doomsdays made by blockstreamers to push their offchain agenda.

there is a balance. a compromise. and although some are presenting 8,6,32 proposals now..
i personally feel 2mb base 4mb weight is a good compromise everyone could agree with, and everyone gets what they want.. IF they put their political party ambitions aside.

forcing false doomsdays to coerce people offchain,(even done subtly) causes less people to want to become nodes(for security). less reason to want to become miners(for security). and turns bitcoin into a less secure system.
thus moving people to sidechains permanently the agenda. (much like "realbitcoins" rhetoric last year involving the altcoin NXT being bitcoin 2.0)

bitcoin needs to continue having an open and fair choice to continue doing onchain transactions for the immutable security. or offchain for the faster convenience.
there should not be an all or nothing debate.(though blockstreamers want all or nothing)

bitcoin is an open network that should have no barriers of entry and no dictatorship in central authority. this should not change.
by barrier of entry i mean. today sticking with 1mb blocks is a barrier to entry. jumping to obscene block sizes of "terrabytes" is a barrier of entry
thus a safe and workable compromise and agreement by the community is the best option to continue bitcoins ethos.

ok drop the "upgrading at the same time". that is your failure of understanding.
because nodes are running right now and users will stagger their upgrades over time until there is 95% upgradeded. followd by grace periods. followed by mining pools upgrading at a staggered time period until they too have 95%. followed by a grace period.

knowing nodes will be running for a long time before blocks are made bigger. rules out alot of things. as it would be coded, reviewed, tested and implemented long before consensus..

after all many implementations are running already right now. no one is waiting for 2017. they have the code running now. code can be reviewed by anyone new wanting to use it now. and then run it way before anything actually happens.

but lets put the "upgraded at same time" rhetoric to one side. because as i said majority would have upgraded over a staggered period

but lets take something comparable to your subtle hint of a future bug
lets say your talking about a bug where going over 1mb reveals something no one realized before that only pops up when miners go over a certain number of bytes.(1,001kb for instance)
well then. we have..year 2013:
the 500k db bug, while the nodes had a 1mb consensus in place. in 2013
majority of nodes had double capacity consensus rules but as soon as miners made a block over 500kb. a bug appeared in the way nodes stores a block locally.

if there was a bug then miners just go back to making under 500kb blocks where there was no issues and a fix is found before trying again to go above 500kb again.
hmm.. wait.
2013 there were over 7000 nodes. and bitcoin still exists. blocks are bigger than 500kb

now replace 1mb for 2mb, replace 500kb for 1mb and replace 2013 for 2017
is that what you are talking about?

your doomsday about exceeding a Xbyte block revealing a bug has played out 3 years ago and bitcoin still exists.
care to take off your blockstream utopian hat off and put on a sceptical hat and deal with the if/when segwit has a bug.
and describe how that will play out.
or will you brush it aside and uphold sgwit as a masterpiece of bug free utopia.

if you wish to be open minded and be sceptical.
atleast take into account that segwit (though socially required rather than technically required) will also require 95% acceptance before things change.

i truly hope you put the skeptical hat on and plough out a segwit doomsday. especially emphasising segwit would be at 95% acceptance.

in 1-2 days??
are you saying that anything not blockstream:
cannot have a consensus that requires 95% running nodes, which takes time for people to code, review and run. to get to 95%
followed by a grace period, then
cannot have a consensus that requires 95% mining pools, which takes time for people to code, review and run. to get to 95%
followed by a grace period.

but instead all nodes do nothing and then magically jump to 95% and activate in 1-2days.?
funnily enough no proposal has ever proposed such a silly brainfarts.

instead realise it takes time to get to 95%.. which strangely you agree is right for core.. but strangely think is not right for anything not core.
not even sure where u are getting this 1-2 days from. but im guessing its out of the doomsday hat