could be

but also just as likely be the blockstream supporters and adam back and his co-developers.. they might be working on some kind of strategy to increase the core node count, beyond the 12 different implementations count. forcing people to softfork to their offchain future. i hope this is not another bunch of fake nodes running on a cloud service because that has no value at all. if these nodes are real, it would be a whole other story. well, we will just have to wait and see

remember blockstream are just as guilty as classic.
there should be no control and there should remain MULTIPLE different implementations.

im guessing its a blockstreamer.. because this topic is self moderated.. as always

i love bitcoin.. just not blockstream or classic.

if you think that blockstream is bitcoin. then you need to lay off the corporate kool-aid.

but it is nice to see that you want anyone hating corporation control as being anti-bitcoin. i have seen many of your posts telling people to just give up and stop using bitcoin.

which is a sure fire way to let the corporations win.

sorry but if you want corporate control. which i assume you do due to your obvious ploys to deflect any bad stigma against blockstream. then please atleast admit you want a job with them, and man-up and be honest about it.

just to point out to the know-nothing i quoted above
a traditional bitcoin transaction is 500bytes on average.

yet the physical hard drive storage of a full node using segwit+confidential payment codes while remaining at the 1mb maxblocksize. is estimated at 2.85mb per block for upto 3800 transactions of real data storage needs..

yet

a 2mb maxblocksize allows for upto 4000 traditional transactions for only 2mb...

which totally debunks all data bloat doomsdays and all pretense including the statement by carlton. because, if a segwit+confidential payment codes is not network heavy. obviously a maxblocksize increase is not either... simple maths 2mb is less than 2.85mb

the only reason blockstream dont want the 2mb now is because they want to use it to hide the bloat of CPC, because they need the 2mb maxblocksize just to try keeping to the estimate of 3800 txs, after the CPC is activated, other wise we would see less transactions per block capacity.

i did laugh thinking that carlton really believes that adding more flags for LN and the extra bytes needed for CPC was their attempt to make transactions thinner..

he must be a comedian in real life

though u cannot prove the statement because infact i am not on all day 365...
but i could ask you that same question

i do love how you meander into a different topic to avoid providing details to disprove what i say. so lets reign the subject back on course..

show us that blockstream is not a corporation and that you shills who love your altcoins and offchain, less secure payment methods, are the opposite of what the OP is accusing classic of.

blockstream and classic are both as bad as each other when it comes to the corporate agenda.

bitcoin should not be controlled by any corporation. either obviously or subtly in any way.

i do know the difference. im just wording it to get you blockstreamers to admit that lightning is not the same as bitcoin. not as secure as bitcoin and the mechanism that collates the many microtransactions into a leaner transaction (within the hub!) ready to broadcast to the main bitcoin network, is less secure. and more possibilities that those within the hub can abuse transactions due to it not being as protected (while in the hub!) as real bitcoin onchain transactions are.

to use your blockstreams favourite scenario.. the authorization part of visa is LESS secure then the settlement part.
because if authorizing a payment was more secure.. there would not need to be a settlement layer because people will just use and trust the authorisation database.

which blockstreamers blindly want people to think that LN offchain is just as secure and no one can manipulate transactions while offchain.

waiting for logical, rational attempt by you to correct me....

..waiting

..waiting

ok you cant.

bi-directional.. within??
 a small group.. AKA a hub(u call it channel)

the blockchain ledger transactions are not bi-directional.

only the transactions WITHIN the HUB (channel)

if you were in the fashion industry you would flatly refuse that BellBottom jeans are anything like the 1970's Flares.
yet people who use them will see that the jeans are loose and shimmy at the bottom the same way

different names does not mean you can pretend its not a smaller less secure network.

EG. if closing the channel to combine and sort out the micro transactions is as risk free as a real bitcoin ONCHAIN transaction.. then there would be no need for peta hashes of miners because hubs(channels) are just as good at collating and administering peoples transactions.

atleast admit that LN is less secure and people should make an informed CHOICE to do real bitcoin transactions for security or LN for utility/speed. and dont blindly tell people to trust LN for every transaction

logic!
Raspberry pi's were not even around in 2005.
i said a rapberry Pi is half the speed of a regular computer of 2005.. (regular computer being twice the power of a raspberry pi)
thus a 2016 computer is even more powerful again.

but hey if you have a 2005 raspberry Pi. then you must break the laws of physics which obviously proves you dont follow the rules of logic
you talk alot to your best friend lauda. so go ask him about the % capacity segwit offers and the extra bytes confidential payment codes adds to a transaction.
because i used his mythical numbers for the procise point that you blindly would ridicule the numbers.. meaning your ridiculing your own pal.


but no, you wont talk about stats or real data..  all you wanna do is insult people without bothering to check facts. as proven by your own words

and ur lack of stats, logic and unbiased thought process doesnt surprise me again.

maybe when you get out of your snake pit and actually explore, you will see the numbers are not mine..
so its never been about me being taken seriously. its just me being frank about the real situation and not glossing it over just to stay happy with your friends. the real funny thing is i grabbed the numbers from posts your best friend lauda mentioned or linked. so if you want to debunk the number you better talk to ur friend first

maybe its time you stop insulting everyone thats not a blockstreamer and started researching. because blindly following lauda wont help you..
by the way only a month ago lauda thought bitcoin was wrote in java...
good luck following him.

so please show some maturity. have a cup of coffee spend some time to think before you speak and try to make a valid rebuttle using logic data and stats for why blockstream should be a supreme ruler.

if i see one insult or just a meandering post where you try to avoid showing valid real data that doesnt sound like a script out of the lauda salespitch manual. then you have failed.

so please use proper reasoning why blockstream should be the supreme ruler. and centralize the control of the bitcoin code. or you can happily go back to the 52page toomin topic and entertain yourselves with ur friends oblivious to the world

not a problem if it can be divided down and easy to share out

really??
i have never used statistics


never used logic?

how about the basic logic that blockstream want the imaginary 900million people to stay on just a dozen insecure central hubs, yet spout out how its better than just using visa or more secure then bitcoin.

how about the logic that there wont be 900million users in the next few years.

how about the logic that people can livestream their gaming, while also in group chat while also playing said online game. all of which is high upload bandwidth.

how about the logic of a traditional bitcoin transaction vs a segwit confidential payment transaction.. real byte for byte.


oh and by the way the math to work that out was from you blockstreamers. so it made me laugh when it actually does against everything you say.

EG 2mb maxblocksize = upto 4000 transactions for 2mb data storage.
1mb maxblocksize PLUS segwit and confidential payment codes = upto 3800 transactions for 2.85mb data storage.

so if segwit and confidential payment codes are not a network bandwidth or hard drive store, or node distribution problem. then 2mb maxblocksize isnt either.

seems no one is denying blockstream is a corporation.
seems no one is denying blockstreams has ties to banks
seems no one denies that blockstream prefer people not to use real secure bitcoin ledger transactions and instead want people using less distributed less secure LN hubs.

seems the only one that even tries to say something opposing to me is using personal attacks and insults without any statistics, logic or real data to defend blockstream

it also seems obvious,the blockstream devoted people are also altcoin devoted easily spotted by either their name. their avatar or their post history.

so before you take a personal attack. try to debunk the issue at hand that blockstream is as bad as classic..

lol and yet no one is unbiased about blockstream

we all know that blockstream loves altcoins and "blockchain" we all know that people such as ICEBREAKER are altcoin supporters.
so the funny thing is that blockstream is just as bad,

i do laugh that blockstream has ties to bankers and silicon valley too.. yet any scenario to push blockstream to the side and keep bitcoin open to everyone instead of a power grab, gets slatted as bad for bitcoin.

bitcoin in short should have no power house. even suggesting that gavin, garzik hearne "resigned" suggests that its a contractual role rather than an open platform for anyone to come and go.

i agree with the fundementals that classics corporate agenda is bad and sways people away from classics code.. but the same has to be said for blockstream

anyone protecting blockstream might aswell be protecting gavin. its that simple. gavin and adamback are 2 cheeks of the same corporate face..

bitcoin should not take any sides, but instead be an open platform for the best code to be implemented by anyone. and for anyone(en mass) to validate that its good clean code.

blockstream has more chances of controling the direction bitcoin goes and forcing people to use altcoins. so please dont make it a "choose blockstream because classic bad"debate.. instead, make it a "choose 2mb+segwit for the benefit of the community and dont blindly follow any corporation" debate

kind of expected that from a blockstream corporation fanboy

but regulations do not have anything to do with tax.. that is a whole different thing.

EG in the UK the FCA deals with financial reglations of money businesses and the HMRC deal with tax
EG in USA the SEC deals with financial regulations of money businesses and the IRS deal with taxes.

governments do not need to control bitcoin or tax bitcoin directly. just like america cannot jump into a french citizens bank where that french citizen has never touched a dollar in his life or ever set foot in america.. purely on the bases that he never filed an american tax income form..

bitcoin belongs to no country!

what needs to happen is the TAX offices of countries need to monitor their own citizens properly no matter what the currency their own citizen used.. thus not making special rules to penalize bitcoin but make it a complete financial monitoring scheme of all currency/assets. thus treating bitcoin on the same level playing field as fiat and where the tax office requests funds in the native fiat(native legal tender).

EG a french person gets paid dollars for work. the french tax office learns the income amount and requests X euros.
EG a french person gets paid bitcoin for work. the french tax office learns the income amount and requests X euros.
not
EG a french person gets paid euro's for work. the american tax office learns the income amount and requests X dollars.
EG a french person gets paid bitcoin for work. the american tax office learns the income amount and requests X bitcoin.

no way should any government be grabbing 20-50% of peoples actual bitcoins, otherwise the end result is that the government hoards all the coins,

secondly bitcoin doesnt need regulation in terms of licences just to use it at a small level(individuals). it only needs consumer protection. which can he handled without licences or having to cough up millions in reserve just to touch bitcoin.

yes big corps wanting to do exchange trading do need licencing just the same way as they were handling fiat. but making it a blanket policy that every user needs a licence and every country needs to buy an american licence incase they trade with an american citizen is foolish and wrong.

but  they can simply tighten up the consumer protection side rather then the regulation side.. because once you look into what regulations actually do, you soon learn it has little to do with protecting customers.

people can still be prosecuted, sued and found guilty of criminal acts without regulation licences. all that needs to happen is to tighten up current laws rather then create new ones to penalize ethical, innocent bitcoiners.

if you think bitcoin is only about Sig-campaigns then you have already lost the complete point of bitcoin

even if not a crime because the word bitcoin wont be found in any law statue in the country. the police and government will find a way to seize the bitcoins and then sell them off. making a profit.

im hoping someone closer to the case knows the addresses where the funds are. and can analyze where it moves. and if the government there would sell them off publicly or privately.

but i do hope the miners were not stupid enough to leave the private keys on the seized laptops

bitcoin can work on a raspberry Pi.. meaning even a 2005 (11 year old) computer is atleast 2 times more powerful. and so a 5 year old computer or a 6 month old computer can handle alot more.

i do agree we need real data to back up this because all i hear currently is Laudas un-researched but scripted doomsdays. which is scaring people..

oh and by the way if laudas data on segwit is to be believed (190% capacity) and also blindly following blockstream rooadmap of making confidential payment codes by default.

then a 1mb maxblocksize+segwit+confidential payment codes = 2.85mb of real data for 3800* transaction capacity
as opposed to 2mb maxblocksize with tradition transactions =4000 capacity for 2mb real data amount

as oppose to 1mb+segwit(no confidential payment code) = 3800* tx capacity with 1.9mb real data amount

*(only if people switch to different types of private/public key signature types and do segwit transactions, expect less than 3800 due to not everyone doing segwit)

basically we should not force people to do segwit transactions to gain capacity. we need both 2mb+segwit to allow freedom of choice, zero control.

also if node distribution is the thing you care most about. also look into how many of the 6000 true nodes will blindly think pruned/no witness mode is ok.
also look into how blockstream think that the softfork is so safe people dont have to upgrade. meaning not only will it make old nodes not be full nodes because they cant verify transactions fully. but also that by not upgrading people cannot make segwit transactions so the capacity growth will not be the full 190% that lauda proclaims..

lastly. knowing that it does require people to upgrade to utilise. it is a sly way of making people upgrade. so essentially is not as risk free as you may think

lauda still blindly wants to assume its a power grab that only one codebase should win.. leading him to want blockstream to be the supreme leader and central powerhouse.

which goes against bitcoins whole premiss..
he doesnt even realise that defending blockstream by talking about the corporate arguments of classic. is him blindly hiding the corporate arguments of blockstream.

NEITHER corporation should have control.

once he puts down his paycheck and uses his mind in the best scenario of the community he will see that all 12 implementations having 2mb PLUS segwit, together is best for everyone.

then he might stop banning people because they are not blockstream fanboys.

i really wish he would open his mind instead of his wallet when new proposals are launched. especially when its been proven he lacks real research and is just reiterating a script someone told him.

nope.. totally wrong.

the people moving it around are people pushing it into the real economy..
its the people hoarding it for 3 years that you need to politely tempt them to start using it

use logic