so your saying that going soft is basically: accept controlled bitcoins new route change or fuck off and dont use bitcoin??
seriously that is not respecting consensus.

i also have to ask where are you even getting such crap information that there would be a hard fork at 51%
please please please tell me why miners would risk 49%+ of their income by causing loads of orphans.. seriously use logic and not propaganda.. explain your point why anyone would consider a hardfork without majority acceptance..

attacking who?
betraying who?

oh yea the blockstream heavy devs..

did you not even take your fanboy hat off to consider that hardforks need consensus(majority upgrading to accept) and softforks dont.
did you not even think to yourself if bitcoin is decentralised and the community were all equal then there is no one to betray?
did you not even think that devs should work together to settle on acceptable parameters and all release versions that fit those rules instead of force their own rules by bribing miners..

ok lets skip that stuff, maybe its over your head, lets just raise the main funny part of your mindset .. "bigblockers"
lets test your understanding of logic and maths... 2mb vs 4mb.. which do you consider "bigblock"

if you pass the test.. then answer this:
which is more dangerous
a rule change that requires 95%+ of nodes to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?
a rule change that requires no majority to accept(upgrade to) before its activated?

if you pass that test then answer this:
which is better capacity
2mb for ~average 5000tx
4mb for ~average 4500tx

if you pass that test answer this:
is pretending the real reason to go soft instead of hard is to remove malleability, but then replace it for RBF/CPFP meaning double spends are not solved, reason enough to continue to push soft.

if you have got this far without putting your fanboy hat on, then here is a final question..
who are you protecting exactly. why are you protecting them exactly..
(in context of there being no power house and everything is decentralized)

im thinking carlton would prefer a core developer who only knows code to be the one talking about social economics..
and then have another core developer who only knows code to be the one talking about technicals.

then when the OP who wants 2 separate people to debate against each other.. the 2 that turn up who are a single mindset can pretend to debate each other but effectively be agreeing with each other in some circle-jerking competition.

i dont think carlton understands what debates really are. i dont think carlton understands that its actually healthy to have opposing opinions. i dont think carlton understands that circle jerking and blindly believing something because 2 people say the same is not a good thing.

but hell, let the OP do things carltons hidden desire way. get adam back and gmaxwell in a room and let them control the conversation..

now for the facts about control
(blockstream heavy) core can veto a hard fork with just 5%-10% sheep nodes(miners wont change if 5-10% chance of orphans)
yet core can implement a softfork that can totally change bitcoin by making old nodes blind, passing data they cant check, without any resistance or refusal.(softforks don't cause orphans even if the data cant be checked)

thats right a softfork can be implemented at any point and there is no opt-out..
cores "activation parameters" are not necessary for function, but just a comfort blanket to appear that users have a choice. but as i say, its not required because old nodes cant veto new nodes.

softforks just render old clients into litenodes by not allowing them to validate data, but still blindly pass it on. the only choice in a soft fork is upgrade and accept the change, or dont upgrade and become paralized..
softforks can introduce new bugs without choice or veto. but hey, everyone is ok with it because they trust 12 paid developers and 90 spell checkers.

but im still laughing each time i see people call non-core fans "bigblockers"
for years the bloat debate went on and the COMMUNITY settled that 2mb was a reasonable and acceptable amount of bloat. (this was even before the gavin and hearn stuff as they wanted 8mb+, so don't bring gavin or hearn into this point as your rebuttal, ur just misdirecting if you do)

how can 2mb be the "big blockers" if blockstream heavy core want 4mb??  2mb vs 4mb.. come on its easy to see who big blockers really are
its obvious those that call non-core fans bigblockers have never read a single line of code or able to comprehend simple maths.. yet they still try to push their blockstream heavy agenda.



now with the community wanting 2mb and also something logical like BU where the nodes make the capacity growth decisions instead of being dependant on a dev team(like some oliver twist 'please sir can i have some more' slave).. so that no single dev team can have control...
the whole REKT campaigns started where core devs started becoming factions.. to try turning bitcoin into something controlled by blockstream.
core even evicted some of its own devs who didn't support the blockstream plan to make core-dev team blockstream heavy. rather than open to all sides.

even now gmaxwell is planning a REKT campaign against one of his own (LukeJr) purely because luke is going to release a codebase of core with the desired true capacity growth the COMMUNITY originally wanted.

core pretend that they are open by having their main PAID devs.. and then throw in 90 or so spellcheckers just to hide the powerhouse, by trying to say they have 100+ devs all on equal levels as each other.

even now anyone wanting 2mb with 2x capacity is deemed evil. because blockstream heavy core devs want 4mb with 1.8x capacity.
and their main selling point to try pushing for 4mb with 1.8x is to remove double spend mechanism(malleability)... but... secretly adding double spend mechanisms(RBF,CPFP), making double spends still an issue.

and here is the kicker..
if there really was no one controlling bitcoin. then there would be no need to defend a single group or person as that group or person has no more power than anyone else.
but by defending someone out of fear that if they stop their plans, bitcoin cant function. then they are subconsciously admitting bitcoin does have kings in control and that we are all blindly reliant on those kings

my ideology is that decisions should not be made by any one faction and then bribing miners to implement it.. but instead the devs treat each other as equals. that means instead of going to miners meetings. they go to meetings with ALL the different bitcoin dev groups and settle on a community solution.

that way miners do not need to be bribed by any one team because no matter what team the miners like most. the rules are all the same.

anyway goodluck to greg on his ploy to throw another dev off the bus due to not siding with blockstream plans, goodluck to greg trying to twist bitcoin into something to try getting people over to his monero coin. and goodluck to greg when he moves 100% over to monero so that others can bring bitcoin back to being something the whole community want and need it to be.

the community would support LEGIT projects where investors can do due diligence to ensure its not a shell company using a POBox, that does not even have any legit assets to freeze should the business "get hacked"(go bankrupt)

as for the OP managing it. i think that wont ever happen, for reasons he knows
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1590472.msg15991794#msg15991794

but one tip for him..
"mining contracts".... in africa.. sorry that just wont work

thought there is evidence to say core AKA blockstream is in control.
after all even if some fanboy wants to say there are 100 contributors, it actually equates to a dozen main devs and 90 'spell checkers', thus being more central while mascarading as decentralized. (a dozen peoples desires to go down one code route, dominates the route everyone else follows blindly)

where amungst the dozen dominant devs, the majority of the main devs are blockstream funded. and headed up by maxwell..
meaning his word directs several people, who direct several others and so the ripple effect expands.. like a pyramid

even a big name in the forums fails to deny core has control, by using an example that core actually does have control
translate, if blockstream can get a significant majority of the users to use their code, then blockstream will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software, then blockstream will direct their employees do do a REKT campain and that will ripples down to their friends and friends of friends).

core has majority=core controls.

but with all that said im thinking the OP is bringing up these known facts from months ago, purely as a bit of price speculation in an attempt to bring the price down again now that its nudged over $600 again.
im thinking the OP missed the oppertunity to buy under $600 and is finding the most 'scary' bitcoin facts there is, in hopes to affect the price negatively

even with "free" electric you wont break even.
the reason is the retail price bitmain sells at is 4x higher then their cost of production. EG $1600 retail is ~ $400 cost.
electricity at 5cents/kwh its about $285 over 6 months
electricity at 10cents/kwh its about $570 over 6 months
electricity at 20cents/kwh its about $1140 over 6 months

so even at 0 electric.. its still costing you $1600 retail for the unit,
where as bitmain/antpool costs is $685(unit and 5cent/kwh 6 month payment)

which no one can beat because bitmain wont sell a rig for $400 to outsiders.

infact bitmain costs are only $285 for 6 months use..
this is because every retail unit they sell. bitmain deliver 1 unit to the customer and 3 units to theirselves(antpool) for free

methods:
1) invest in stock:
buy products/novelties with fiat, sell it for bitcoin. keep profit as bitcoin and use the rest to rebuy stock (alpaca socks, bitcoin cupcakes business plan)
2) bitcoin broker:
buy bitcoin sell it at a couple percent increase to local people in your area (localbitcoin, BitcoinATM business model)
3) conferences:
hire a meeting room or large floorplan area, invite people to come, charge a ticket fee (devcon, expos, conference business model)
4) hardware:
invent a new ASIC, hardware wallet or other bitcoin tool (antminer, keepkey business model)

but im guessing you are probably more hands-off and just want to throw money at something and let it earn you returns without breaking a sweat, and so

1) VC investing in legit(corporate registered that have real office locations you can visit) bitcoin businesses
2) do any of the 4 hands on idea's but give a percentage of profits/salary to a person who would do the hands-on stuff for you

but im guessing you are probably going to say your not a whale investor and dont have that kind of amount to do any of the above

1) your better off continuing your own normal job and just buying up bitcoin each payday,

2) reduce your outgoings and use the money you save to buy bitcoin
EG if you spend $15 an evening on pizza, a beer and a couple cigarettes, while stresing out at the scams.. just eat a grilled cheeze sandwich with meat and sauce slapped ontop and get a cheaper brand of beer, allowing you to put $10 into bitcoin

implemented??
no lauda..
stop overselling it in the hopes your friends can get hold of the next tranch of investment money early..

The Latin word implementum means "filling up" or "fulfillment."
A decision, plan, or policy is like an empty idea until it's implemented. An implemented rule, on the other hand, is in full force, and you'll have to stick to it

segwit code is RELEASED, but NOT implemented, not activated and not functioning..
i know you want to pretend to know latin. so i was helpful enough to teach you some of the latin you love to pretend to know.

to the OP
segwit is not active yet, even when it is people will need to start using new keypairs and sending funds to those new keypairs for it to begin to become usefull so dont expect instant 1.8x boost the second its activated.
its alot more involved then "just a lack of activation parameters", so just be patient.

1. banks do not give customers interest in order for the bank to give away customers money in loans.
imagine it this way
banks show their reserves and are allowed to create 900% new cash due to holdings. its this 900% new holdings that get handed out as loans not the customers funds.
(EG $1000 reserves= $9000 new money creation...... total bank now has is $10k. but doesnt touch the customers $1k and only hands out the new $9k)
and the interest of 5% on the 9000=  45% of the customers holdings..
($9000 new money creation = $450 interest)
to legally generate this new cash, bank made a deal that they have to give some of the 'profits' to the customers because it was the customer funds that was being used as collateral.
(EG customer gets $50 banks keeps $400)
remember the banks never touched the $1000..
however if a bank loses the $9k then there is a risk of banks needing either a bailout or the banks just go bankrupt and uses the $1k customer reserve to pay off debts.

in bitcoin, exchanges CANNOT do fractional reserve in the sense of banks. but they do loans. EG they lock funds into a mutual reserve (multisig) where both exchanges need to sign.
and then while funds are locked in the multisig they can credit each others (mysql database) balance with a set amount.
and then when trading, win or lose to decide who owes who what. and when the winning exchange calls in the debt of the losing exchange and signs off on the multisig.. its time for the losing exchange to shout "hack" because customers funds are now in the pockets of the winning exchange.

2. you can see its happening because everyone knows it takes hours(mainly bitcoin, some fiat)/days(fiat) to deposit into an exchange for customers to arbitrage.. yet the exchanges 'sheep follow' each other within minutes..

its even possible to work out which exchange is sharing reserves (to allow instant arbitraging) just by looking at the price charts history of exchanges and see when a price moves first and then which exchange is first to sheep follow.. if there is a pattern that a certain exchange sheeps follows another certain exchange first. then they obviously have a combined reserve.

3. i agree that exchanges should only use the profits of their trading fee's to take arbitrage oppertunities, but you have to realise that the owners of exchanges are not 'wall street guys', all they see is money sat doing nothing where they feel greedy to put it to use behind closed doors.

im not saying exchanges need 'regulations' to solve this. because regulations wont.. but i do think that exchanges need 'consumer protection' rules to be written up to protect customers funds being mis-used. (if you understand the difference between the purpose of a regulation and a consumer protection, you would understand why we should never push for regulation. and only push for consumer protection)

the thing with D-wave is this..

once you wash away all the alternative realities and unicorns(yes he subtly implies unicorns near the end of his horse-plane metaphor).. you start to wonder why is he not just explaining the technology logically..

the reason is at the crux of it, d-wave is actually simple to understand..
its not any magic. its not any parellel universes its simply this.

binary is just a 1 or 0. stored on flashcards or transmitted as either 0 volts and 1 volt (in simple terms) actually its more like 1volt is a whole byte and 0.8volt is decimal 204 of 256, 0.6volt is decimal 152 of 256.

here it is explained in terms of CCD camera's storing the brightness of greyscale (from black to white)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=mcE4Oq9bYMUC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22#v=onepage

now D-wave is just the same thing.
imagine 0 volts was binary 0 and 1volt was binary1. now D-wave has an algo that treats 0.5volt as their cough magic cough.

they say its their third dimension 'both on and off' but in reality its just 3 possibilities instead of 2.

so now they can do logic tests of not just
no, yes.. but.. no, maybe and yes
true, false.. but.. true, 'i refuse to answer', false
on, off.. but.. on, dimly lit, off

D-wave just doesnt know how to use it, and are going to spend years trying to work out how to make this 3rd choice useful.

in my eyes it just turns one byte from 256 possibilities into 6561 possibilites

imagine it for IP addresses
256.256.256.256 only allows 4,294,967,296 possibilities using 32 bits
6561.6561.6561 allows 282,429,536,481 (70x more) possibilities using just 24 bits(each measured at 3 voltages instead of 2)

technically i think d-wave are not measuring (simple terms) 0v,0.5v, 1v.. but 0v,0.33v, 0.66v, 1v.. to have 4 options.. i say this because
bi=2 tri=3 qu=4  (think square, 4 corners) so qubit sounds to 4 options not just 3, just because of how they named it...

making one byte(measured at 4 voltages instead of 2) goes from 256 possibilities to 65536

so imagining IP addresses
65536.65536 allows 4,294,967,296 possibilities using only 16 bits(each measured at 4 voltages instead of 2)

if only the D-wave guy would stop talking about the mystisism of alternative realities and stuck with logic. then by now he would have found some real world applications of this new way of storing data and solving logic problems

hex for instance instead of being stored as 2 hex per byte. it can be stored as 4 hex per byte
binary F = 1111
qubit F = 44

so in a byte binary 11111111 = FF
in a qubit 11111111=FFFF

exchanges are not "getting hacked" due to buyers drying up.
but because users throw in their bitcoin (to use as a store) but are only actively trading 1% of the time.

this allows 99% of funds to just sit there. tempting exchange owners (usually basement dwellers, not experienced finex guys) get tempted to use that 99% elsewhere, instead of just leaving it in cold store.

bitfinex admitted half their reserves were used in mtgox in 2013, which should not happen, no exchange should be background trading with peoples funds behind their back.

its when these background trades go against the exchange, EG a unforseen price spike or dump losing the exchange its reserves. they then try to back peddle and double down to recoup the losses until they are at a point where they are upto 50% loss and know they cant recover, that they declare a hack months after the actual losses were made.

so dont worry about the potential of the supply-demand drying up. all that happens is a stagnant price.. but the real loss is background trading without customer consent (fractional reserves, technically abusing reserves) that you have to worry about

some exchanges already do it.
behind the scenes they share keys with each other so they all have partial control of multisigs(via bitgo). so say poloniex and bitfinex shared keys, they would both see and know who had what and be in full control of when it would move. this would allow bitfinex to be "credited" with a balance on poloniex and poloniex to be "credited" with a balance on bitfinex.

we all know it has happened. (bitinstant was the middle guy between btc-e<->mtgox in 2012) bitfinex admitted they had reserves in mtgox. and all these new 'sidechains" are based on allowing backdoor reserve accounting between the exchanges (sidechain: liquid)

Gmaxwell  is too self indulgent to be taken seriously as a real lecturer. He has no good comparisons/metaphors for explaining Bitcoin, just a former computing student.  Except when he got a job as CTO at blockstream, lol. He mostly speaks in backdoor meetings.

however has technical background in cryptography / distributed systems


as i said.. as a fair "opposition" where the OP said he wanted one social economics. and one technical, to debate each other.. i think andreas vs greg would be a perfect match up

google has the answers
http://www.zazzle.com/bitcoin+bumperstickers
https://bitstickers.net/

second link appears to be more about retail shop windows. but first link should do

andreas antonopoulos is always a good lecturer. he can simplify topics into average joe understanding, and talks more about the social/economical side..

as for someone uber-techy, that i think would do a good job of opposing andreas.. Greg maxwell who is very techy and in most ways has the opposite views of social economics

USDT uses the same conversion and checksum of the publickey->address  as bitcoin .
so a keypair for USDT is the same as bitcoin

EG
Private 5abcde -> public 1zxywv for USDT
is also 5abcde -> 1zxywv for bitcoin

poloniex can simply copy USDT private key for public address 1zxywv.. put it into a bitcoin wallet to then see the bitcoin balance of 1zxywv
then poloniex can move the funds back to sender or an address OP desires.

Gambia wont Ever use bitcoin. 1tx fee of 0.0001 is half an hours minimum wage labour
Kyrgyzstan wont Ever use bitcoin. 1tx fee of 0.00016 is an hours minimum wage labour
bangledesh wont EVER use bitcoin.. 1 tx fee of 0.00015 is an hours minimum wage labour
Georgia wont Ever use bitcoin. 1tx fee of 0.00012 is an hours minimum wage labour
Cuba wont EVER use bitcoin. 1tx fee of 0.0001 is over an hours minimum wage labour

uganda wont EVER use bitcoin. 1tx fee of 0.0001 is SIX hours minimum wage labour

but there are many corporation lovers who think that bitcoin should be the tool of the western corporate world where a $5 transaction should be deemed "spam", simply because they want to push people away from bitcoin. for other 'solutions' that include third party managed networks

fire
the wheel
the first cows-milk drinker
bread
beer

no one knows the names of who done it first and shared their knowledge with the world

message from 2013 from bitfinex to a customer explaining half of bitfinex reserves were on MTGox

elon musk is happy. he has got his money back x3 thanks to reusing the rocket and also the insurance
zuckerburg is happy. he has got his money back x2 thanks to "charity status" of the donations and also the insurance

good old capitalism
why build a vehicle to just sell.
when you can rent it and insure it. get your returns and then blow it up to double your money

but dont worry elon has a backup rocket (courtesy car) to avoid any disruption

lesson one.. dont turn the engine on when filling the gas tank... unless your looking to claim on the insurance for a free upgrade