Lots more could have been added but it's a good basic list. For me the mistake I made several times at the start, was not looking the graph with 6 or so months of a coins trade history and instead looked at only the last few days or week or two. I would miss the fact that it was actually in a pump and got caught on the dumps. Not all pump and dumps are quick. For example, a big one I got screwed on (although I did end up making up my losses), was Cloak. Bob had worked that one for several months and then the pump started. Lasted for a few weeks and then he dumped on everyone. I had come in right about the time the dump was about to start. And since I hadn't looked at a long enough time frame, I didn't see what had been happening.

Yeah, I was having to do that every 2000 or so blocks which meant it was even slower. We'll see if the wallet ever finally loads or not with the blockchain download I used.

Without the full nodes rejecting the non signaling segwit blocks, the miner would not have decided to forked. Without him forking, the market would not be able to determine the outcome.

Again, you're basing that on an assumption. It will never come if all miners stop mining their current block when they receive the next one, i.e. they accept the next one no matter what. A miner that joins in the UASF will reject the next one if it's not signaling for segwit and continue mining his block.. So as far as he's concerned, he starts producing 100% segwit blocks. His chain never contains blocks from those that aren't signaling for segwit. And since he's broadcasting his blocks to the the nodes, those full nodes will take them and continue on. So of course it will come.

That's based on the assumption that at least some of the miners that are currently signaling for segwit would not "switch" (at some point at least)  to build the "segwit" blockchain. I hate using phrases like "their best economic interest" as most take short term gains and sacrifice or risk long term what's best for their economic interests. But in this case there would be some that see it as being in their best economic interest to join in the "UASF".

My error was in throwing out some scenario in the hopes of simplifying in order to try and get you to just focus on the question. So I'll reword things and try again.

Full nodes undertake a "UASF" and only accept blocks from the miners that are signaling for segwit and thus bring about a fork.

Now the market has the ability to ultimately make the final decision. Yes, there will be chaos and the outcome would be unknown, but now it's in their hands.

So that means full nodes have zero power?

Really? You must be new here lol

Only if it got back down to it's pre-pump level or a much longer time has elapsed indicating there's a new "floor" for it.

"catastrophic event"? Don't know if it would be considered "catastrophic", but given the state of the block size debate, a hard fork is a possibility as the sides take it to the next level with an all out war. That would bring about chaos and the price would drop way down and probably stay down for awhile.

I was working on a long response and just trashed it all.

So let me re-iterate in what I hope is the simplest way I can. Your statement is that full nodes have zero power, "zilch" so they might as well "all" be shut off. The "full nodes have zero power" is what I'm talking about, not your statements where you start to add qualifiers. You have failed to convince me that it's true.

Let's just use an example where 75% of miners want to increase the emissions back up to a starting point of 50 coins/block.

The market won't like that but they have no ability to reject that protocol change. They might drive the price into the tank for awhile, but they've proven time and again that as long as they see they can continue to make money, they'll do so and so will end up just accepting it.

Full-nodes however, can reject those blocks, accept the 25% and bring about a split in the network etc. Now the market has the ability to ultimately make the final decision. Yes, there will be chaos and the outcome would be unknown, but now it's in their hands.

So that means full nodes have zero power?

lol.. Really? Not sure how you could possibly ask those questions when all the majority care about is "to the moon!!!!!".

The reality is that it says more about them wanting you to be a one dimensional yes man/drone than it says about you. Anyone that puts money into something without all the details needed to make a real risk assessment is just looking to have someone take their money from them. It's sort of amusing.

So one of the problems I have with your "logic", is that half of the time you come up with these 1 + 1 equal 2 equations that ignores some other factor or is based on multiple assumptions, some of which can be flawed.

Outcome U is only accomplished because X "put" the decision into the hands of Y. So if ultimately you believe that the ability to do that still does not mean they have any power what so ever, then that's where we will never agree no matter what sort of "logic' you try and throw at it.

I also find your statement that full nodes are not representative of the market truly perplexing. While we don't know the entire makeup, it's clear that a good portion of those full nodes are exchanges, payment processors, companies, traders and users. So how one then can possibly say that they're not representative of the market is just.. well I can't think of a good word for it.

I suspect what this comes down to is, if you are predisposed to believe (or want it to be true) that full nodes have no power, then all they can do is "influence" through action as you believe. But others believe that the ability to perform an action that "influences" things the way you want is, ultimately, power.

As for your plastics guns analogy. When you throw things like that out there I end up questioning your sincerity. You take some non applicable analogy and then basically imply that anyone that thinks this is true is not logical. i.e. implying they're "crazy". Throwing in the "I'm not being political" prior to that further makes it appear that you're not sincere and are just trying to advance some agenda.

Anyway. I think it's safe to say that neither of us will be able to convince each other one way or the other.

I was thinking from what I had read that thimgs would take awhile but this is crazy lol.

I did download that blockchain and like I said, it sat there "loading wallet". I stopped that task a few minutes ago but that was another 2 hours past when I posted and it still hadn't loaded even though it seemed to be working away on something.

Do you have a rough time frame for both scenarios as opposed to "long time" for "average" computer? Just want to have a clue how long I should expect to have to run things.

Yep. It's extremely rare for a "build it and they will come" philosophy to lead to any success. But the post and the twitter of "promises" with no track record to back it up is a good indication of which bin I should put this coin in.

Couple years of going no where with the coin has clearly shown that to be a great philosophy. Well, good luck with your project then.

Right, but I never said full nodes are the only ones that decide one way or another, you're saying that and then saying the conclusion is that they thus have zero power. You've simply failed to convince me that full nodes have zero power. It's more like a 3 tier system. Everything is fine as long as everyone agrees with what the miners are doing. If they don't, it's bumped up to the full nodes and from there it can continue up to the final level of users. At the end of the day, it's a combination of all 3 that will finally settle on some sort of resolution.

I've read a lot of your posts on this and you've failed to convince me except in the case where 100% of the miners are in agreement and in opposition to a very large majority of those running full nodes.

If, for example, 75% (hash) of the miners decide to change something radical about the protocol, the full nodes can choose to reject their blocks while accepting those from 25% of the miners. Yes, the entire system is disrupted for some period of time but it was going to be anyway.

Does this coin take an inordinate amount of time to download the blockchain? I've tried it a couple times and had it run for many hours and only get up to around 7000 before I pull the plug. So I downloaded the blockchain from the service found on the reddit, and the app just sits there "loading wallet". Been like that for close to an hour now. There are some really slow coins out there when it comes to syncing but so far this one is the absolute worst.

As someone who "supports" segwit on it's merits, and a 2Mb block increase for compromise, I have yet to see any compelling argument for this. Can someone point me to something I can read and digest that would actually accomplish that plus something that refutes that. I'm not talking about things that are filled with propaganda and ideology but solid arguments based on technical issues and facts etc.

I've been playing around running the numbers the last couple days. "Assuming" a $1600 USD bitcoin price, cloud mining from one company would take 19 or so months to pay off. Buying a S9 and running it in my home would take just over 6 months to pay off. Cloud mining would be set it and forget it though but of course you'd have to really believe the company would be around in a couple years. Nicehash however is more about doing your research and calculation to get the best profit which can be much better than the other options.