maybe the announcement is hinting something

"Sensitive QR reader recommended"

im guessing the OP has read the many pages of attempts and thinks we have missed something. so is hinting there is a QR code we might find hard to scan..

ok here is your chance.. please dont back away dont shy away.

you love bitcoin-core devs, you love blockstream. and luke Jr is in both of those. so you must by admission love him.
so here is the question.

when luke Jr releases MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; version of bitcoin-core. will you accept it and treat the controversy as over.. or will you kick lukeJr to the curb?

wont be long now. i can hear the rustling in the wind of the "smallbrainers" (i liked your nickname for them) preparing a REKT campaign against LukeJr because he is going to do a bitcoin-core implementation with MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;

i guess its nearing the time the "small brainers" decide that the controversy is over because there will also be a bitcoin-core available for 2mb blocks. if not, they will just keep on crying until they decay on the minority chain in a short period if consensus is reached.

lets play the mitosis game

mitosis is natural growth. what is suppose to happen is new cells grow and the old ones die off naturally.

much like the minority chain dies off naturally due to orphans, delays and tx fee rises making it useless very quickly.

however treating new cells like cancer and trying to kill them off to keep the old cells alive is going to leave you with decaying cells that cannot function properly, slower to metabolize energy and cannot grow.

the natural thing to do is let it grow and allow the old cell to die naturally.. rather then trying to use propaganda chemo to kill new cells and try keeping the decaying old cells alive

the op has lost all the arguments about bloat.
the op has lost all the arguments about data centres
the op has lost all the arguments about any other doomsday..

so in that very last ditch attempt he is trying to say hard fork controversy is bad and keeping a minority fork alive is bad..

so what is his solution..
create controversy by trying to get people to stick with MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000;

and do what he can to try keeping blockstreams controversy alive

does he not yet realise that people can actually download the code for 2mb block implementations for the last few months
does he not realise that people can review the code
does he not realise that people are running the code on real bitcoin data.

but segwit is still only playing around with altcoins, (yes segnet and testnet are altcoins)

if majority consensus is reached to expand to MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;

by the minority avoiding MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000; it will create the controversy fork rather than just a expansion/growth for all
(basically shooting themselves in the foot, feeling the pain they cause themselves)
by trying to sway people to stick with MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 1000000; no matter what.. will cause the users of it to be left waiting many many blocks, having to pay huge fees and repeatedly have to rebroadcast their tx in the hope of getting it into a 1mb block

i smell something fishy.. and Yutikas_11920 seems like the OP's alt account giving fake feedback..

dont risk it guys

just making an altcoin is boring and has no chance of success there are already over 1000 of them.

the way to have more chance of success is this:
1. do something different
2. get retailers and services using it.

before you even start coding a coin it is best to think about the end goal first.
if no one is going to be able to use it (2) and there is no reason to use(1) compared to bitcoin. then there is no point even starting.

think about what is missing from bitcoin or from fiat that you can think of a solution for. and go for it

just dont waste your life making a coin if you havnt even thought about the two main points first

many countries already have self serve cashier desks. where people scan their own items and pay for goods. where the machine weighs the contents of the grocer bags to check it balances out

and added easy solution to criminal behavior is:
a deposit.

imagine to use the app(gain access to the store) you had to prepay Euro20($20/£20) which sits there and can accumulate interest/loyalty bonuses.. or if security footage shows that your a thief then you lose that deposit.

its mainly psychological that no one wants to risk losing Euro20($20/£20) just for a jar of jam or a pack of biscuits..

but that combined with the weighing machine and the fact that the doors have automatic locks.. then crime can be significantly reduced. especially compared to having to pay out well over E$£1000 a week if the store had to be manned.

losing maybe E£$500 a week in stock is cheaper than labour costs

i find the OP funny..

he was a NXT fanboy, categorizing his crappy alt desire as bitcoin 2.0 (that was funny)
he also in this topic admits he doesnt even run a full node before today..

the OP should be a comedian

now your dreaming.

consensus is where its deemed safe.

eg. 75% is just a warning bell, a kick up the back side.. to shout in people ear that things will change

but miners wont physically make bigger blocks unless they are sure of 2 things
1. their blocks wont orphan where it matter most. meaning they get to spend their reward when it matures
2. acceptance (private trade /exchange) where people happily accept funds shown on the chain.

stop imagining things and stick to reality.

silly silly silly..

a hard fork only happens AFTER consensus is reached.
put it this way. miners are not going to make bigger blocks at 50%, 60%, 70% or even 80% due to risk of the network orphaning their hard work..

technically they could make bigger blocks at the 75% "warning period". but they are smarter then that.

what will happen logically realistically and practically.. is that at 75%(block flag consensus) there will be a big social push to tell people that things are going to change. and get people prepared. miners have time to upgrade (25% remaining) but it will wait for 95% of the entire network(nodes) before miners would risk making bigger blocks.

the 75% threshold is just a neon sign of the miners.. based on blocks with flags... simply put, a glowing big fat sign to warn people of changes.. but miners wont push bigger blocks until they see the USER node count (view able on bitnodes) showing a high upgrade count

the 75% is about blocks..
the 95% is about compatible nodes.

2 distinctly different things

if consensus is reached.. its reached. any attempt to cause more controversy after that point should be laughed at

LOL there wont be 31.4million bitcoins unless core starts IP banning 95% of the network to keep the 5% chain alive and waits atleast 6 months for the 5% chains difficulty to drop to allow fluid block creation at a reasonable time for that insecure chain..

core is creating the controversy and will need to create more controversy for your "second chain" survival to exist.

imagine the risk of 51% attacks on a chain with only 5% hash power.. the many issues that the 5% chain would have..

well i can think of 10 reasons why the remaining 5% would move to the 95%.. rather than pushing the controversy further.

screw it.. lets list them
1. weak insecure chain easy target for 51% attack
2. only confirming a block every 3hours 20 minutes (20 blocks average time) containing only ~2500tx
3. tx fee sky rockets with 50,000tx left in mempool (2500 per 10 minutes for 3 hours) fighting to be next in line for a space of only ~2500
4. only 5% of services accepting these delayed blocks
5. takes 6 months to sort out difficulty
6. segwit doesnt fix the capacity/bottleneck fixes everyone was hoping for (reference point 2 and 3) yet the 95% chain is
7. segwit doesnt fix the tx fee discount everyone was hoping for (reference point 3) yet the 95% chain is
8. peoples funds get accepted into blocks. but the recipient declines their existence and does not honour refunds due to wrong chain
9. node count at 250 nodes(5%) compared to 4750(95%)
10. nodes crash due to mempool overflow

lol if your transaction will be confirmed by the 95% chain.the hopes of you re-transmitting it and successfully getting it relayed by the 5% of nodes in another chain is hard.. to the only pool that is on the other chain.. well.. thats hard too. and then that pool adding it to a block with only 5% hashpower.. even harder.

the only possible way would be to ban IP addresses to ensure the 5% only connect to each other to avoid relay rejections issues.
so thinking about it.. the only people banning IP's to ensure they only talk to the 5% chain just to try keeping it alive.. well thats core! (controversy creators)

LOL you make me laugh with you weird assumptions..
so lets clarify things. learning is fun. nd i hope you learn something from this.

you do realise that blocks over 1mb will only be made if there is 95% consensus, because miners wont risk it otherwise.(orphan risk.. learn it)
secondly. if exchanges are using a chain that is rejecting blocks and only has 5% hashpower( leaving them behind) then not only are they not seeing the blocks that contain their own customers deposit transactions, but they are ignoring 95% of all transactions..
no one would use that exchange if their deposits never show up in the exchange.

please think beyond the spoonfed rhetoric.. it does not require "exchanges" to make a chain the master chain. it requires the most accepted distribution of block data and the highest hash power..
those without it (5%) will fizzle out..

its not 50-50 equilibrium... thats what orphaning is about. please stop the usual false rhetoric of altcoins.. and do some more research on the matter.

ill say it again. learn about orphans and how it will sort everything out, making people choose one path.

what you have to realise is that BU, XT, bitcoinJ, bitcoin ruby, classic and every implementation you can think of apart from core.. actually has implementations with the 2mb buffer... they are running today, validating blocks. being checked and used..
there is no future promise or ETA.. the code is publicly available now and people are running the compiled programs that are validating and relaying real bitcoin data..

it is only CORE that are causing a conflict, causing controversy and are going to cause your altcoin analogy(short term). but guess what.. if miners get consensus to activate a hard fork (95%).. it will be core users that see their data rejected and unvalidated making the users of core implementations left many blocks behind the other 95%.. so those 5% wanting to remain full nodes will ofcourse update to the 2mb or be left with an insecure chain(5% hashrate) diluted data(5% distribution) and blocks far behind the main chain.. yes 95%=main chain..

meaning that the "altcoin" doomsday you cry out about will fade out quick..

just wondering.. are you going to throw Luke Jr under the bus in some propaganda scheme, if he releases a core implementation with the 2mb buffer included.
are you that devoted to blockstream that you will throw any coder under the bus if they solve the controversy issue that you are using as your last ditch attempt to avoid real growth??

and please dont ejaculate the rhetoric that segwit is the ultimate capacity solution.. even the guys coding it have publicly said its not designed as the capacity solution

these are silly theories that dont work.

making 9 blocks that have no reward is simply not going to make miners desire to solve blocks. they would rather work on block number 10.

this can cause many issues such as difficulty dropping 10x because now there are 10 blocks to make in the same average period as 1 at the moment.
this can cause many issues such as miners skipping a few things to not waste time on the no reward blocks.
this can cause many issues such as miners not using as much hashpower to conserve the costs(electric)

in short to be able to hash a block in 1 minute.. security has to suffer.

there is nothing wrong with broadcasting upto 4mb of data.. even the core-devs agree with this because thats what the allowances are for segwit. the issue is not about data.. but about allocation. core are still dragging their feat to allocate 2mb of buffer space for a traditional block,

they are holding back capacity and they are the only ones causing the controversy where there is no doomsday scenario apart from what they are making themselves by creating controversy

best diet ever. steal millions of dollars lose 70pounds(lb)

translate

so it seems there are also going after him for what looks to be a form of fractional reserving too (padding)

service providers.. like bitpay and other retail/consumer direct swaps.. no..

service providers.. like exchanges with bitcoins altcoins and fiat.. yes..

exchanges "orderbooks" are not directly linked to funds stored on private keys. which allows them to make 'ghost' orders. and when things go bad that they have made a loss on the ghost orders because theres not enough coin or fiat to fill the withdrawals. they cry out the standard "we have been hacked" mantra. and then go into bankruptsy

there is no point remembering the random private key. because once you spend it you then have to learn a new private key for the change address.

high deterministic seeds are not only easier to remember but also represent MANY keys that would all be used by you, so even when funds move to a "change" address, that address is also included in the seed

its a food truck