Yup - a "classic puppet" if ever there was one.

Don't try and pretend to be anything other than the shill that you are.

And don't expect that anyone with a brain is going to pay attention to your nonsense posts.

Don't try and say what the "truth" is when you seemingly completely unaware of it. Without consensus you do not have a "network" so your statement is just rubbish.

My guess is that you are a paid shill for Classic (the Unlimited crap is just something you're adding in to try and make yourself look less like a shill).

Strange - that someone who just said a few posts ago that he supports Unlimited is now promoting Classic (as I knew all along).

Easy to catch people who aren't really very clever - isn't it?

(@VeritasSapere R3KT by CIYAM and you're all very welcome)

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?

Here is what I see (as a software developer) - things like "libconsensus" are being developed to make it actually easier for other projects to do Bitcoin (and do it properly).

Now if the "core devs" were so hell bent on total control then why would they develop that in particular (and that is only one example - but I think the best example of why you have got things very wrong in your understanding)?

Maybe you aren't a coder so you simply "don't understand" but why not listen to people that do know this stuff rather than just joining in what has basically become a mob attack of the core developers?

Strange - you may not have heard it - but Bitcoin was created by a dictatorship decided on by one guy (we know as Satoshi) - perhaps you ought to learn your history before you start trying to change the future?

(you can argue that Satoshi was not an individual but for sure it was not a "democracy")

That makes zero sense when it comes to "consensus" (you can't just choose any software you want unless you want to risk destroying the value that has been created from the complying software that has built the blockchain).

It would make more sense to promote alt-coins than to try and promote destroying Bitcoin by having it forked to death.

If you're unhappy with Bitcoin then back an alt or perhaps create your own (it's really not that hard).

Strange - as you are only supporting *one* alternative implementation of Bitcoin (that is being controlled by one guy which supposedly you don't like as a structure) - where are the others (as you clearly don't support the core developers)?

As you don't like "one guy in charge" please get behind something that Gavin is not involved with for a start (at least then you'd look more honest with regards to your statements).

Far too hopeful (did you read what I linked to?).

Basically the only thing growing at anywhere near that sort of rate now is storage (and yet people whinge about the size of blockchain which is actually the least serious problem).

The two things that are not increasing in a way that will allow massive scaling (through simple increases in block sizes) are bandwidth and processing power.

This is why smart ways of reworking the Bitcoin implementation (such as SegWit) are essential to allowing the system to provide the kind of P2P Cash that many are hoping (or expecting) it to provide.

As a settlement layer it is already perfectly functional as is.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/

Moore's Law is dead and has been so for some time already (so anyone using that as a basis for anything to do with science must be clearly hoping for miracles).

Perhaps Santa Klaus will also be a key factor in the future?

Hmm... that must have been a long time back (as I don't even recall what they were) but I think that having voted in only 2 polls in 5 years shows you that I don't care for the polls on this forum (back in late 2011 and early 2012 there weren't so many sockies and the polls might have had more apparent value).

So let me correct the statement to say that I have only ever voted in 2 polls in this forum and that those were a long time ago and that I wouldn't do so again.

Polls on this forum are basically useless (as people will just use sockies so it only ends up telling you who is more determined to win the poll rather than anything about general opinions which is why I have never voted in a single poll on this forum and never will).

Huh?

You do realise that CLTV actually checks the nLocktime (hence its name) so if you got rid of nLocktime then it wouldn't do anything at all?

Also scripts can exist "outside the blockchain" (signed but not broadcast which was the very point being made about nLocktime) so you can't rely upon at what block they appear to determine the rules at all.

Getting a tx to be much smaller than the current minimum size would be no small feat although I do understand that a reduction of maybe 30% for the signature size might be possible after SegWit has been implemented.

But I think that is more likely going to be 200 bytes than 100 (and in general over time crypto stuff tends to need more bytes in order to remain secure so you can't really expect any further significant size reductions).

Personally I think get the settlement side perfected first and then work on the payment side of things (there are already quite a lot of off-chain services to do payments as it is so this isn't really so urgent IMO).

Understand that the settlement side of things includes the remittance market which is actually huge (it is the first big market that Bitcoin should actually have already disrupted yet it has failed to make any significant inroads into so far).

Initial work on the Wallet and Transaction packages to support ACCT (using CLTV) has been completed.

Currently it requires a fair bit of manual copy and pastes which should be able to be removed by optionally tying the Trade package to the Wallet and Transaction packages (which I think is going to be essential for this to be generally usable).

I expect this will take at least a couple of weeks after which work on being able to turn this into a combined local and blockchain application will commence.

And so you'll get none (including moving your topic as that would actually require assistance which you have explicitly now stated you don't need).

Oops.

Am unwatching now - have a pleasant day.

Your attitude is so bad that basically there isn't anyone here that would want to help you.

(so don't bother fixing your post just keep on ranting and raving and see where that gets you)

"Good manners don't cost anything".

Wouldn't an obvious thing be to remove the reference to any Scrypt miner then and just call it PSU for general miners?

(if you hadn't specifically mentioned an Scrypt miner then it probably wouldn't have been moved)

As much as I could keep playing with this silly little troll I actually would prefer to do some coding (something the people at IOTA should consider doing a bit more of themselves).

I think this topic has been noticed enough to have served its purpose.

Finally, again, if you are going to run the software in question you would be best to do so within a VM.

It's rather obvious with this persistent trolling that the last thing that IOTA project actually wants is any close scrutiny about their software.