well i just thought that with all of your cries about internet speeds and stuff there was no way that you could live in america..
also things like talking croatian and being a mod of the croation category..

anyway
although 20mb is diverting off the current proposals by a factor of 5-10x.. and entering the cosmic theory of doomsday dreams, lets ask you..
are you saying to this other guy that 0.3mb internet speeds is something the world is averaging.
is this 0.3mb speed something you yourself are suffering with..

have you also complained to skype for offering video services to millions of happy people because in your eyes them millions of people must be unhappy.
have you also complained to twitch, youtube, and other video upload services that do live streaming?

in short is 0.3mb a real world problem where video uploading and livestream is a problem (uses more data then all current bitcoin proposals)

hmm.. lets pick a country .
ok africa..http://www.africawebtv.com/
ok korea..http://www.afreecatv.com/
ok russia..http://www.vichatter.com/

i could go on..
seems all countries around the world can livestream.

the funny thing is that you are more distraught about including 3rd world countries than excluding them.
this is because internet speeds are not excluding 3rd world countries, but the thing you have shown many times, is that your desire for higher fee's will price 3rd world countries out of using bitcoin.
i then laugh that you pretend you want higher fee's to reduce spam. yet you want to remove features like sigops, which will allow spammy transactions to increase. (funny that)

500gb hard drive. well your the one that chooses to not think about the future, only you will be the one crying
cant blame bitcoin or anyone else if your hard drive fills up in 2.5 years+ (core 4mb weight)

a 2tb hard drive is only 800,00 kuna (im guessing your still in croatia) (£90 : $120 for those not wishing to convert kuna to western currencies)
not sure why you are even choosing 500gb

i feel like your actually trying to shoot yourself in the foot just to have a reason to cry in 2 years, even though 2tb is not a "data centre" cost and will last you for atleast 10 years (core 4mb weight)

what actual costs..

a 2tb hard drive does not cost more if its storing 52gb or 104gb.. and in 20 years-40 years when its full that hard drive cost is marginal
wait. lets put it into cores 4mb preference
10 years usage

most people change their computers every 5 years anyway


oh i forgot you dont have a real node running on a home computer. you have an online AWS node with only probably 100gb storage

try splashing out $300 and run a real node for once and be part of the decentralized network. that $300 will last you over 10 years
($30 a year, $2.50 a month) much cheaper then amazons $15 a month

lets put it into a scenario you may understand.

town rules.. the town shouldnt have more than a 32bedroom house because outside of town it can cause highway congestion(internet packet loss/delay), aswell as inside the town(bitcoin network) by logical default

now there are several neighbourhood councils(implementations) within the town(bitcoin network) with their own rules below the town rules.

old satoshi QT 1 bedroom houses but only half the room can be used due to a db bug infestation
old core council 1 bedroom houses
new core council 1 bedroom houses with a 3 bed mobile-home on the drive for parents(signatures) to sleep, possibility of 2 bedroom houses next year
BU council want people to choose but are highlighting the town rules by lowering the town rule threshold. while still allowing preference below it
other council want 2 bedroom houses, with hope that later the rule can be consensually changed again (in years, like an oliver twist' please sir can i have some more')

all council rules are WAY way way below the town rules, because although the town rules are in regards to outside town issues, the neighbourhood council are worried about immigrants over population (spam), local road delays (transaction bottlenecking within bitcoin), costs of maintaining the house ($200 hard drives)

im not talking about node operators (the human) im talking about the demographic/category of nodes.. mining nodes vs user nodes
but atleast now your admitting that the distribution of non-mining nodes has an important job as part of the network.

and it seems you have failed to understand BU.
the 16mb safetly number, is the same as cores 32mb safety number..

then below those safety numbers:
BU has a dynamic mechanism for preferential buffer
core has a fixed preferential buffer of 1mb for 0.12 and 1mb base 4mbweight for 0.13

oops did you forget cores 32mb limit, well then
 
but have a nice day,

P.S
the 16mb explicit cap and cores 32mb explicit cap. have nothing to do with the preferential blocksizes the consensus should work at, but to do with a secondary safeguard in relation to issues with data packet sizes and other issues regarding the internet as a whole (beyond bitcoins control)

 i laugh at your mindset
'big blockers want 2mb'  ........ (core wants 4mb)
'big blockers have a secondary barrier of 16mb'     (core has 32mb)

easy maths question.
2 and 16.... or 4 and 32. which is perceived as the real big blockers?

"users" refers to nodes that are not mining. not the physically breathing and eating and pooping human at the computer
also its the nodes that do the validating, that could lose a miner alot of income if the miner jumped first and made blocks that other pools reject and users full nodes reject.. so they do care about users nodes.
EG imagine if no merchant/exchange was using the same rules as the miner.. the miner cant then spend their income.
think about it. in a waking reality.

wait..
let me guess your subtly hinting that the node decentralization doesnt matter and you think that 6000 nodes is irrelevant and we should just have 1 node? or wil you backtrack and admit that the nodes do an important job.

no wonder you have your fingers in your ears.. its digging all the grit out from sticking your head in the sand.

seems you forget what happens after the grace period.
when miners see users are ready users are then happy to accept 2mb blocks, but still only receive 1mb blocks, because...

miners have to be satisfied their competitors dont disregard thieir blocks
so when miners are then satisfied that atleast OVER 95% of user nodes have the rules ready... then the miners do their own flagging and consensus mechanism over another block measure to show a 95% of miners are happy

seriously wake up to reality and join the conversation, get out of the fantasy doomsday nightmare that is not reality and start thinking rationally about how things will work in the real world.

miners wont jump first, they will wait for users.
even when users are ready, miners wont jump unless they see other miners also consent, that way the orphan risk is low (around 0-5%, same as any other day where we are seeing small % orphans a eachday)

let me guess you have on many times suggested consensual parameters that are acceptable... but you are now pretending that instead you imagine the parameters have to be some different and lower doomsday parameter and 28 day grace just to make your newest doomsday argument your creating plausible.


again.. the 95% does not trigger until 5700 have reviewed code, tested it and happy to run it..
this could take days-weeks-months before we start to see people using it. and longer before there is a clear 95% stable and constant use of it that meets a stable/constant use parameter of lets say 1000-10000 block measure of constant 95%.

then after that (which itself may take months to get to that point) there is also a further grace period.

this is not to say the 95% trigger is time locked to activate next week
this is not to say the 95% trigger is going to happen at any predictable time at all..
it will happen if and when 95% have done all the checks and tests and run the code for a length of time

grand scale?
theres only 6000 nodes..not 600k, not 6mill, not 6 billion... just 6000 (which only ~ 5500 are active at any one time)

and by the way, you yourself dont even know C++* and a few other languages, you have been proven to lack understanding of programming on many occasions. and now you pretend to think you are an expert about the ability of just 300 people upgrading in 6 months

here is some lessons about the 6000 nodes
1. 5700 nodes would be upgraded just to trigger the 95% benchmark
this trigger wont occur tomorrow. it would occur AFTER 95% of the community get a chance to review the code, run the code, see its ok, and then be part of the consensus process.
which would require all 5700 to be running the vetted and checked software at the same point for a certain period.

2. 300 nodes (5%) then have 2-6months to move across, to give them a little more time to vet and check the software.
again its not some BIG billion different computers that need to be upgraded.. essentially the grace period is just waiting for 300 nodes..

but here is the funny part.
all 6000 full nodes are running as full nodes instead lite nodes for a reason. so its not like they dont care about bitcoin. they will want to stay relevant and part of the validation process, otherwise they would have stopped running their full node and just done something like setup a blockchain.info account. or downloaded multibit instead. and not be part of the network.

but because they are obviously a full node, they will obviously be more alert to things going on in bitcoin and so be a little bit more proactive then you presume people running nodes are.

*i refrained from embarrassing you by quoting your admissions of lack of programming knowledge. im sure you remember me quoting them before

seems like people are still confused and use ethereum as a domsday for bitcoin.

a consensual vote for changes to bitcoin can happen, it wont cause a second coin because orphans will take care of the minority that didnt upgrade.
things like a 1000 block voting period to get 95% of nodes ready.. and a 2-6month grace also helps the remaining 5% get ready
thus affecting well under 5% when finally activated

as for ethereums controversial split. this was not simply changing the rules.. because as i said orphans would sort out the minority after activation
ethereum INTENTIONALLY chose to make an altcoin
reference:
meaning orphans wouldnt ever have settled a winning chain and killing off the other.

this is because the reference literally blacklisted nodes apart depending on which chain they wanted and ensured they didnt orphan each other out by ensuring they didnt talk to each other.

in short: changing the rules creates orphans, blacklisting nodes creates alts.

remember in a consensual upgrade, it requires 95% to upgrade BEFORE the grace period rolls.
if it doesnt get 95% the grace period doesnt start meaning nothing changes.

changes only happen if the majority want it and then even at 95% vote extra time is given for those reluctant few to realise they will be left orphaning blocks. thus that 5% will upgrade too(eventually)

if you want to create a intentional bitcoin fork you need a blacklisting feature to ensure the two opposing rules dont orphan the minority, because they are not communicating to be able to

no, you, carlton, gmaxwell are not advocating it.. so you pretend its not an option.
but you forget the roundtables, the miners, the merchants and many users not in your fanclub that are wanting it..
mayb i was strong by saying you were asleep. more like u got your fingers in your ears pretending you did not say something or know something u previously said and known

even the roadmap said that segwit would release this summer and the mainblock capacity activated by summer 2017.. you had many discussions about that since 2015 (when it finally got to a general agreement by all those involved at the many roundtables.)

remember you even said segwit first then mainblock increase later.. meaning even you have said it will be a thing in the future..
(though more recently adamback went to a few meetings to deny such.. but luckily luke will hopefully stick to his word)

if your now talking about some doomsday split, then your straw-manning something merchants and miners and users are not advocating since late 2015

thanks(sarcasm) to blythe masters. the banks already are.. RTGS is going to be using crypto currency technology (not quite blockchain more so 'liquids' multisign using cryptography system)

core releasing a 2mb+segwit CONSENSUS version =
1) no quadratics because its 2mb base 4mb weight + all the segwit features including linear validation
2) core make it, so they have experience (unless you now deny their capability(lets see you back track))
3) consensus has long enough time to attain 95% meaning merchants are probably first to vote and be in that 95%. then a grace period, so no problems. merchants care more then anyone about ensuring they have upto date code. they wont be stuck running version 0.10(they already at 0.12 and moving to 0.13)
4)2TB hard drive is not a billion dollars. wake up.
5)hang on.. core proposes 4mb for all their features.. refer to my point 1.. 4mb is still 4mb which we both know is acceptable

wake up lauda stop with the twisted mindset to scare people

lol.. you have no clue... time you done your own bench tests. oh heres a hint, when u go on IRC to be spoonfed from ur pals.. ask them to link you real info.. i know u love asking people to link info.. and because its coming from your friends you wont argue and put your fingers in your ear when you get it

BU is user requested scaling.. its not like it actually will contain 16mb of data tomorrow.. miners have their own preferences and will grow incrementally.
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2016 you yourself bleeted that blocks were generally not yet at 1mb and there was still room for growth
EG bitcoin is only 1mb.. even in 2013 you yourself know blocks were only 500k full
meaning even with 1mb rule blocks were not 1mb..

so a 16mb, 8mb, 2mb rule does not immediately make every block that size. its just a BUFFER..
EG you can have 64gb of ram but never be at full memory usage
EG you can have 3tb hard drive but never fill it.. but atleast relax you have more room then you need for the future

but speeking of the future.. lets look to the past
guess your too young to remember 16 years ago when hard drives were a max of ~4gb and most users though that 1.4mb of reusable transportable data was great and more than we needed

also you mention sigops.. werent you the one crying that transaction bloat was straining bitcoin due to so many sigops.(u know the 11minute validation time doomsday you bleeted out like a sheep)

so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go.
so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go instead of batches
so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you tell me would be a reasonable sigop limit.

EG using sigop rules to limit spam instead of expensive fee wars is actually good for bitcoin and good for users.

for future reference:
remember the hypocrisy of you also favouring a system of discounted transaction costs via segwit and no sigops, which will result in more spam when you cry about spam in the future..

edit:
wait i see the plan now that you hope validation times are no issue you are happy for spammers to spam to cause a fee war.. hmm i wonder why. hmm..
anyway i digressed. so back to what i really want to know from you..

so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go.
more precisely.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you see that a user needs to use XXXXX sigops in one go instead of batches(separate tx's)
so tell me.. what REAL WORLD scenario can you tell me would be a reasonable sigop limit.

you mean like Adam back(CEO) and Greg maxwell(CTO) of Blockstream. Advocating for 4mb bloat, purely to fit signatures and confidential payment codes. to push people into their gateway of sidechains and offchains, while the community cant even get 2mb of traditional transaction capacity.(yep even segwit cant expand capacity to accommodate such capacity requests).
even if some notable devs did have decentralized morals at one point multiple years ago. they are now under employment contracts and NDA's so they cannot exactly bite the hand that feeds them, and we can no longr think of them as having the same motives of pre-employment as they now have in employment.

yes the spoon fed mantra from core fanboys has lots of hypocrisy, involved.

though i do agree that regulations should exist only for businesses on the outside layers of bitcoin(fiat touching gateways). but that is why im highly against businesses getting too "handsy" and to involved with swaying the direction of bitcoin by paying dev's.

core concept appeared in 2013, and meandered away from an open platform for anyone to join and turned into a REKT campaign to push people out that didnt follow a single minded direction of a few paid devs.

satoshi disapeared in 2011.

core and satoshi have no ties

though core is trying to centralize bitcoin by being the sole controller of rule changes and treating any other implementations attempt to add new features as "an altcoin"..

lets instead deal with the other point of this topic..
mass adoption..

knowing Euro is mainstream but you cant buy anything in america with it.. even when euro's are used by more people(in europe) vs americas population combined.
knowing the pound is mainstream but only used by 70million people, which is only 1% of the world
knowing Chinese Yuan is used by a billion people (3 times american population)..
knowing that bitcoin has no borders. so there is no point in the idea of a bitcoin 'country'.

what would people rationally describe as a realistic and achievable scenario that would be defined as the point where bitcoin is "mainstream"
the only answer i can see most centralized/price rising/mass adoption now wannabe's will say is some magic number that is a FIAT value(facepalm)  twice or more times higher then the price they bought it at or twice or more times higher then the price bitcoin is now..

afterall.. a couple years ago the fiat loving centralizing mass adoption advocates said that $1000 was the magic number.. now its $2000-$600,000

what metric would anyone use to consider bitcoin mainstream?
population of users? .. if so how would you measure it
merchant acceptance?.. if so how would you measure it
value of bitcoin?

some people thing the mainstream peak is when media talk positively about bitcoin

and i ask all those thinking the debate is just about what "team" to trust.

will you be ok with a core team release of 2mb.. or be part of the rekt campaign to push that implementation into obscurity due to it not being a blockstream domination plan.

again worded differently though, by being done by the team you love. will you then finally accept it as a option the community should happily download. or reject it due to fear of core losing central control by offering a feature that other implementations already offer, making core on a level playing field with other implementations by allowing the community true freedom of choice without bias..

as always for core fanboys, its never about the code, never about the feature. its all about core controlling the decisions to centralize bitcoin

controversial forks (intentional splits) are not good.

that is why THE COMMUNITY wants a CONSENSUAL FORK meaning the majority continue on a single path, but have the upgraded features, higher capacity buffer, where the orphaning mechanism built into bitcoin take care of the minority.

again not an intentional split (EG ethereum '--oppose-dao-fork')
but a true consensual upgrade of features and buffer, based on majority consent

the problem is that core fanboys dont want a true consensual fork.. they have done all they can to give core power and control. to veto out any plan that involves a consensual fork..
segwit does not require consent(no nodes need to upgrade to consent to the change) and some people are mixing up the metaphors to think that the only options are controversial split or no consent.. by calling the no consent option, consensus..(facepalm)

i just wish the core fanboys dont REKT a core team release of 2mb
so then EVERYONE has the freedom of choosing, and that choice does not have to be a social choice of fanboys of certain groups.. but instead based on features they want the chain to continue on in one direction using.
because those in he core fanclub can remain with core because there is a core version of 2mb buffer

again by having a core version. it stops the social war and brings the debate back to basics of features.

wake up people. if your a core lover. by shouting hate about core releasing a true consensual fork version because you prefer the controlled no-consent path. you are truly revealing that you dont want decentralization. and it cant be hidden by "no i love core", because the code would be a core release.

but lets watch the replies from some who will shout hate speach of decentralization and show obvious bias to want core of no-consent changes. dominance and centralized control.
lets watch who REKTs people like luke JR who will release a core code implementation of 2mb buffer.

in short if you want decentralization and love core. let luke (as part of core) release the implementation.
in short if you want centralization and love cores no-consent corporate policy. reply with your hatred of decentralization