to: johnyj
a slight correction

soft fork attack, does not produce a different chain. it just manipulates the information within the chain to make older clients no longer understand much of what they are passing along. basically giving them cataracts and told everything is fine just pass it on, blindly.

the older clients would still pass on the information(thus being "compatible"), but without checking it. making old nodes no longer "full" and just "compatible"
imagine it like downgrading bitcoin-qt's* network responsibility down to being multibit's network responsibility, without the user choosing to be downgraded or ultimately informed that its a downgrade, using wishy washy words that everything will be fine..
*i used QT as just an example of a full node instead of core, purely to avoid confusion of blockstreams debated future implementations of the name core

people need to realise that once segwit hits.. all other full node implementations are no longer "full nodes" but "compatible, but impaired" nodes
there is not a 51% numberic flag..
basically
if 1000 people make a transaction.. and one of them is a segwit implementation
99.9% of transactions the network will understand and 0.1% of transactions wont be understood. but that transaction would still be handed over blindly
if 1000 people make a transaction.. and 250 of them is a segwit implementation
25% of the network will understand 100% of transactions. and 75% wont understand a quarter of transactions they handle. but the transactions would still be handed over blindly

once the segwit debate is over, the next generation of softfork is weakblocks. which would again reduce the verifiable data inside the main block and push it out into secondary blocks, changing from having cateracts, to complete blindness



this is the theorized idea of what would be happening between now and 2017


and blockstreams rhetoric is... dont worry, you wont be affected.
but when pointing out that full nodes are made blind,, they reply ..if you want to be a full node. you have to upgrade to our agenda

not quite..
the rightists believe in hierachy and power
the leftists believe in social equality.

they (politics) dont need each other.. but outside government benches, the general community(public) with differing minds want and need a balance of left and right representing them, to get a fair view and fair stance between control and social growth

in short the rightists would be happy with total control without competition or debate
in short the leftists would be happy to grow without control being challanged

but the public want a fair balance

dont use this unless you know how to code and are going to change the variables before running EG salt

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/communism

communism is more authoritarian EG "Mother Russia Owns You". where the government shares out the production/profits while holding all the real assets
socialism is where the community hold the real assets and everyone helps each other

EG if you had some cows..
Socialism everyone owns the cows and get to milk them and share the milk with those in need
communism, the government owns the cows, and only hands out the milk to those they decide needs them


EG a social club is where everyone turns up at a bar and talks freely. the organiser is basically the waitress handing out the drinks that the people ORDER(waitress has no power)

a commune is a gathering of people to talk freely, but the organiser (head of the group) sets rules to keep the people happy, they have power.. and everyone listens and respects what the organiser says
thats why communes which are too authoriatarian are classed as cults.

ok

communism
your leaders tell you the only way to expand the community is to take all the bitcoin, and then hand out more friendlier and faster "liquids", telling you its better for the community
(blockstream 2017-hopefully not)

socialist
you keep half your bitcoin or code knowledge/time and use the other half to help others
(bitcoinQT 2009-2014)

dictatorship
one leader tells you that bitcoins are not useful without their leadership and control. if you want to continue using them you need to follow their rules, which includes higher fee's and silent loyalty even if you do not like their agenda you have no voice or choice in the matter
(blockstream 2016 - hopefully not for long)

democracy
the leaders set up a platform of 100+ people who are schooled in one mindset. and then sent out with a goal for you to become loyal and trust atleast one of them. once earning your trust, they then go back to sit at a table and do their own agenda, telling the community that you have given them the trust to decide for you.
(bitcoin-core 2015-2016)

capitalism
you take other people bitcoins and put them into a company, you then move the funds away secretly and set up another company listing those funds as assets. you then raise more funds through IPO's on this asset rich second company. before declaring bankruptcy on the first company to not need to hand back funds to customers, blaming outside forces you cannot control (mtgox, mintpal, cryptsy)

bureaucracy
team of office workers employs some R&D specialists. they work out a way to become the consultants for bitcoin, they add rules and regulations and a monthly subscription charge for using the service. employing auditors and paper pushers to make it harder for people to apply to the service. years later no one uses it and they employee investigators to look into why it failed
(R3 - hopefully never)

enjoy

no i mean when people who want to be full nodes, have to upgrade due to segwit in the near future of 2016. part of that upgrade should also be 2mb hard limit ontop to allow for enough buffer space ready for any surprises in 2017..

"compatibility" yes.. but then making those older ones still "compatible" to receive 70% data.. but no longer fully validating it.. so making them no longer full nodes. and just "compatible" nodes.

which is a bit pointless as fullnodes will want to be full verifying nodes and so they would upgrade just to be full nodes again.. so if they are upgrading. they might aswell upgrade to include the 2mb hard limit. rather than segwits twist of data..
or even both..

EG why wait till 2017 to need to upgrade a second time causing the debate and delays all over again..

users should upgrade sooner, to allow them to have a buffer.. then in 2017 miners can upgrade in their own time when they are ready to push more transactions. that way users have had a whole year to prep for the miner upgrades

imagine a normal 1mb block is
{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}

segwit 1mb block is not including signatures.. twisting whats included to fit more transactions in
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}
and a second block (merkle tree)
{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}

by default people will only get the main 1mb block (no sigs) (making older non segwit clients not validate signatures
and if you want the signature data to be a full node (fully verifying node) you will receive:(1.5mb-2mb) if you add a parameter to ask for it
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}

lets not confuse the debate

blocksize vs segwit
is different to R3/toomin vs blockstream

basing the debate just on the code.. (blocksize vs segwit) is a better discussion to have as ANYONE can release an implementation of 2mb or segwit. and so WHO is not as important as WHAT.

EG
R3/toomin have lost out due to their agenda..
although nearly everyone including core says that 2mb is a way forward. doing it via R3's implementation may also have other ramifications later, unrelated to 2mb upgrade. so lets put a line in the sand and kick r3/toomin to the curb.. and just talk about the code, blocksize vs segwit.

EG if gmaxwell, luke jr, adam back, hundreds of other programmers and even CIYAM released a 2mb implementation.. of CLEAN code.. the drama would settle and we can concentrate on the real code debate. and decide what to upgrade to based on code preference rather than social agenda of corporations

its not a blockchain currency..

if you actually read it.. its actually the same currency they have already. they are just trying to get rid of the paper side to be purely digital..

so dont confuse it to be a blockchain altcoin or anything relevant to cryptocurrencies. mainly the banks want to expand the debit card usage to the entire population so that they can do away with bank notes

https://venmo.com/legal/us-user-agreement/

company=venmo..

in short. if you get screwed.. venmo wont help you. they will give the funds back to the sender and then you have to try and find out the bank of the original sender and then question that bank.
as confirmed here

https://venmo.com/about/security/

put it this way. if it was a coinbase/bitstamp hatred by banks..

then bitstamp/coinbase would take banks to court for profiling them negatively..
but there are no courtcases which is more ammo to suggest it is less likely banks are red flagging bitcoin businesses, and more often red flagging users for not knowing standard banking practices.

EG i remember a story of someone getting flagged for trying to buy over $10k.. (um HELLO instant headache no matter what your buying).
people strangely think that buying or selling bitcoins privately .. using their bank.. gives the person special powers to not follow normal banking rules.. purely because of bitcoin.

in short, if your using a bank.. learn the rules, then you wont come to a problem

but the CCN is quoting a blog.. where the blog is making assumptions as to why some people may get closed
EG "transaction MAY include the word bitcoin".

in the UK the main thing that people affected with bank account closures. were not from bitstamp or coinbase. (because not available in UK until recently). but due to OTC/localbitcoin transactions (person to person).. which people have been doing more often for longer.

so its not like coinbase or bitstamp were "known bitcoin businesses" as the cause either. as i said before UK folk just didnt use "known bitcoin businesses"
between 2012-2015.. yet lots of people had bank problems.
the blog, tried to make reference to a reddit that the blog claims was someone linking to coinbase. but the redditer mentioned their issue. where it was used with coinbase(recently). and the bank happily released the account and the person was allowed to do business..

this other person mentioned that he never used the card online.. which makes me believe that the standard bank flags of unusual use (EG funding an american company) and nothing to do with bitcoin. was probably the cause..

i think people automatically blame bitcoin, far sooner then thinking of banks standard practice rules that have been around for decades before bitcoin.
EG
large amount flag
spending oversea's
buyer claims theft

which brings me onto the context of the localbitcoins/otc transactions.
if you are sending large amounts to a "personal account" rather than a "business account".. expect a red flag
if you are receiving funds from a complete stranger. expect the possibility they will scam you
if you are sending funds in a way that is not part of your usual habit, especially more then normal daily spends.. expect a red flag

all of these things have no relevance to "bitcoin"

and if the banks do reveal there was a fraud claim.. get the details of the accuser and deal with them

not saying 8mb needs to happen tomorrow(thats a gavin coin agenda.. not the general community mindset).. the other debates about transaction fee's that get meandered into the blocksize debate dont need to be solved in 2 years either.. it can be slow growth over 20 years, when blockreward is smaller and transaction fees start becoming important(as transaction fees is not important today as a needed income source)..
neither am i saying that 8m is the limit in 20 years.. technology in 20 years will be capable of so much more

so if you go by a 20year mindset .. where technology differences between now and 20 years shows that scaling to the scales of your utopian dream of visa.. is possible in that longer time frame without the "datacentre" doomsday rhetoric, while also scaling up enough that in that long time frame. miners will have enough transaction capacity by then to earn their $10k a block income due to capacity buffer being available to charge fees of just a few pennies(atmost) per transaction.. instead of $$ per transaction under other shill doomsday scenario rhetoric

oh and as for visa's transaction per second estimate.. that is not based on their one network, visa actually does have multiple systems. one for each country/currency.. so dont be fooled by visas numbers. one of their networks cannot handle as much as you think.

and as i said over the nextfew years of just scaling up naturally (without bait and switching data). there can be other new methods of handling more transactions too..

im just sick of the blockstream agenda that is "our way or STFU" (not very open minded, open source, innovative, etc"

satoshi himself envisioned upping the cap.. he even shown an example of it using block height 115000......
..yet we are approaching blockheight 400,000 and blockstream shills are still saying their way to not up the cap, is satoshi's way..
(facepalm)

i too dont agree with the classic stuf in regards to their R3 agenda.. all i and the community want is real capacity increases without bait and switching data for convenience

it can be both..

segwit has 2 modes
default: dont send witness (<1mb data)
archival: send witness to implementations able to send the parameter to ask to be archival.(>1mb data)

old nodes do not have the parameter to ask to be archival so all they get is the default no witness <1mb crap

so as i said.
old nodes cut off from being full nodes as they can no longer check data..(without upgrading to be segwit complient)
segwit miners will want full data so they will be set to archival mode and thus they will pretend to only be getting 1mb of data, but will get more data. which goes against the blockstream shills rhetoric who have said china dont want to upgrade to 2mb rule, due to chinas fire wall not handling more than 1mb data (which i disagree with) or the rhetoric that storing more then 1mb data would require data centres*..(again disagree with)

so how is full archival miners magically not going to have firewall problems or need data centres.. like the doomsday myth rhetoric blockstream shills say would happen with a 2mb cap??

whats next.. only have transaction IDs in the "main" block.. and the actual data and signatures in a subblock.. to again have the illusion of more transactions per megabite, this time 12000tx-16000tx(instead of 6000-8000 by just shifting signatures to the side).. similar to SPV only asking for headers, but where real life actual full data is alot more (6mb-8mb instead of 2mb-4mb)

i do find it funny that lauda put me on ignore just minutes after HE got proved wrong when asking bitcoin-devs in IRC.. even weeks after saying he himself actually spoke to them alot back then.. yet the IRC conversation just a few days ago showed lauda lacked basic understanding.. and got proved wrong by the dev team saying the same things that i have been saying for a month..

it made me laugh even more that rather then learning indepth and understanding to then make a coherant rebuttle using real facts, real case scenario's.. all you blockstream shills can do is just say "you are wrong".. without getting into the detail of why, you just write waffle to twist words i said to show you didnt even understand what i was saying.

you dont use logic or examples of how it actually works. which makes you not helpful either.. if you want to prove someone wrong.. use detail, use proper explanations, use case scenario examples. quotes, etc

i sincerely do hope you get rich quick with your Liquid investments and move on with your lives.. as it seems something is causing you to get blinded by logic and enlightened only by the ass kissing and secret profiteering you may have been promised. maybe after yo get rich then your biased minds can settle down and concentrate on the community needs rather then blockstreams plans

* incase any blockstream shills pretend they never said that 2mb is bad because it would end up in centralisation and datacenters of super computers, rather than ordinary people

well how is segwit archival (real data over 1mb) not the same problem!!

have a nice day

mark kerpeles was well known and trusted between 2011-2013..
mark kerpeles had employee's who also overseen the funds

big vern was a well known person from 2013-2015
big vern had employee's who also overseen funds

in both cases even with trust respect and a dozen employees each... money still went missing

thirdly, i pretend i had 1,000,000 bitcoins stored in cryptsy and 1million bitcoins stored in mtgox, and said
"gimme money" to the insurer. showing the bankruptcy paperwork of both companies

fourthly
i show a valid amount i do own. and move the funds to a second address. and claim the second address was a hacker stealing my funds and said
"gimme money" to the insurer. showing the transaction ID's of the funds moving saying the first address was me and the second address is someone else

signature removal only benefits users that are not full nodes..

full nodes will request the signature data, making REAL LIFE data more than 1mb
= there wont be 6000tx-8000tx for 1mb for full nodes.. it will be 2mb

there is no data saved for full nodes.

the whole point of the maxblock rule is to keep REAL LIFE data under control.. switching what to constitute as in the block is not controlling REAL LIFE data.. its just pretending it doesnt exist for the lemmings. and then increasing it for the full nodes..
you missing the whole point of why the maxblocksize is there in the first place

if people are happy to receive more then 1mb of full checkable data.. then raise the limit
so then people who want to do standard private key transactions can have 2mb of buffer space while segwit special transactions can stay at a preferential 1mb alongside having the hard 2mb limit...and be happy in their little world with their funky new transactions

firstly banking regulations cannot tell the bank customer the finer details. (while an investigation is going on). thats the same for many countries.

secondly its become more apparent the cause is do to with mostly what i call chargeback scammers.. but correctly defined as wire transfer reversal scammers claiming false theft. (mouthfull i know, hense chargeback scammers)

there are not that many cases that banks close an account due to their own personal choices. the few cases i have seen that it was not related to scammers false claims, were related to high volume transactions that flagged up as money laundering concern