well, in this forum. there are many just posting with "$100k by" and "how do we get more people to buy".. these people are the ones with a exit plan to go back to fiat. these are not what i define as true bitcoiners. they are fiat enrichment supporters, just temporarily using bitcoin to enriich their fiat life.

however there are alot of people discussing technical aspects and features of bitcoin. wanting payment services that allow normal shopping to be bitcoin accepted, so that they can buy pizza with bitcoin instead of converting back to fiat to buy food, also those wanting bitcoin to scale to allow more transactions, and such to have cheaper sat fee's so they can use bitcoin.

its easy to spot the fiat enrichment group, because they only post about price. and their desires for a high future price.

its easy to spot true bitcoiners because they discuss bitcoin features and wanting to use bitcoin for normal life stuff

segwit(141,144) didnt activate on august 1st. the mandatory threats did (148/91)

in normal consensus, incompatible nodes only fork off when they are receiving a new format they do not understand (block containing a new merkle tree for instance).
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#specification

what you learn is the 'backward compatible' is not that a segwit blocktemplate is the same as a normal legacy block. its that segwit upgraded nodes understand a segwit formatted block, and then strip it down and rebuild the blocktemplate without the segwit parts so that its formatted like a legacy block, for non-upgraded nodes.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki#serialization
whereby the trick of the 'anyonecanspend' rule is to just not evaluate or look for a signature(witness) of such transaction (because they got stripped out anyways), but treat as accepted even without a signature being validated, verified or stored by old nodes
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#backward-compatibility

this meant that those collating/creating/propagating segwit blocks would not cause a fork after the 24th(141/144). but just cause non upgraded nodes to not be full validation full archive nodes. by being given stripped(serialised) version

which has been a debate about the security hole of then the non-upgrading nodes now no longer treated as full validation and archival nodes, because they are missing crucial data and they are not truly validating all transactions.

.. but before segwit even activated, before segwit nodes and pools even done anything with segwit block templates(141/144). there was a split(148/91). this was not due to normal consensus events of old nodes not understanding a new block structure(141/144) and rejecting(because segwit wasnt activated to even allow making new blocktemplates).. but instead the split was due to the 148/91 stuff of mandatory rejection from the side of those wanting segwit to activate by rejecting old blocks that didnt flag for 148/91, BEFORE segwit activated
..
pools still making blocks without the flag (on august 1st only 1-2%) were getting their blocks rejected, but old nodes still accepted them. causing the split 59 blocks after the 148/91 activation/lockin. because it took hours for nonflag-poolers to get a block confirm, now different nodes were seeing two chains of blockheights containing differing blocks.
UASF(148) nodes with their peers who didnt propagate unflagged blocks. (the NYA economic majority)->users
nodes with their peers who received old blocks(non flaggers)->users.

the bitcoin network followed the chain of the exchanges, payment gateways and prominent pools (NYA economic nodes), because the users and pools feared not getting their transactions seen by exchanges, meaning they couldnt spend their value.

those who were on segwit flagging chain, during the grace period before segwit activated, didnt like the split, didnt like the orphan drama and the cross transmissibility of nodes. so they asked those accepting the old blocks to change stuff to become a independent altcoin.
(as highlighted in previous posts, which showed doomad knew about this)
..
segwit did not actually make any segwit blocktempates with the witness until after august 24th. meaning in a true consensus unupgraded nodes in a true new consensus (without backward compatibility strippping trick) would have forked on the 24th because they cant full validate and archive segwit blocktemplates.

i think maybe this is why after 2017 Doomad got told segwit didnt fork(aug 24th). which he misinterpreted or lead to his contradictions by saying in later years 'it didnt happen'..
but totally ignoring the mandatory fork(using flags, not blocktemplates) before segwit activation(aug 1st), which caused the later activation(aug 24th), by simply rejecting block flags not flagging for a segwit activation. to get a segwit flag of over 95% before august 2nd

again by using a few tricks. bips148/91 forced the condition to start 141's 3 week 'grace period' to get segwit activated.

---

in summary and answering doomads consensus questions
yea the NYA agreement team (UASF) did run their software even though they were a minority. and no one could stop them (you admit they were a minority of general nodes) but because they were also the economic majority(nodes used by payment services and some pools), other pools listened and followed their lead under threat of not having their transactions seen by the economic majority nodes(payment/exchange services).

this is why average user nodes(not exchanges/ merchant tools) had no vote, and were pandered just flagged blocks or thrown off the network for accepting unflagged blocks(orphan drama of 2 chains)..  depending on what blocks got propagated to them via whatever peer they were linked to.

which all occured because of a mandatory action before segwit even made its first segwit block template including segwit transactions

seems some dont like blockchains.

yes there are many ICO's pretending to do projects of utopia but have no intention to actually run, where their aims are just greed.

but blockchains do have a purpose

saying they dont is like saying that cloud storage is not needed because single host FTP worked fine for years.
but here is the thing. even the single hosted FTP owners disliked when their servers crashed and all customer data was inaccessible, so even they like distributed data.

security businesses with a single database employee log-in database, want not only distributed backups, but also a way to check the database isnt edited at any of the remote sites. and ensure that no employee can edit the database without being noticed.

even international airport security want access to world wide data but also ensure everyone has the same copy where one location cant just edit their copy and be unnoticed.

there are many real cases where blockchains offer a simple extra layer of security to standard database models. and it does not require the expense of millions of 'asics'. blockchains are not limited to being asic mined. the point of a blockchain is to lock a block of data. and chain it to the previous block of data. so that any edits can be seen/checked quickly and the latest 'hash' can be compared to other sources to check everyone has same copy.

blockchains dont even need to be from genesis to eternity. there are ways that the block hash is based on just 50 blocks in length where the oldest block drops when the newest(50th) block is added. meaning a perpetual chain of only 50 blocks chained together.

as stated in previous posts ages ago..

at the moment the bottom value and premium is in the $30k-$70k range(mining cost most efficient to most expensive on planet)

no one on the planet needs/wants to pay more than $70k because even hobby miners in japan/germany(most expensive electric on earth) can mine bitcoin cheaper than $70k

once the value window (look at most expensive electric and calculate mining cost based on hashrate) exceeds $100k then people are more willing to buy for $100k.. but that is not yet.

i know memory escapes you. but if your unsure about the bips. go read them.

your rhetoric for years was that there was no mandatory split. and that the only time there would be a split is if people run incompatible software when segwit activates and starts making segwit template format blocks. (after aug24th)
yet the bips 148 and 91, and BCH split prove that a fork happened on august 1st (the dates of the bips) not based on segwit activation data and segwit actually being used.

i know you now want to play games pretending you mis understood 'threshold, vs 'activation' to pretend, in previous yours you meant that segwit started making different block formats on august 1st. but you are just playing bad grammar games trying to claw yourself out of the hole you dug yourself

there was no segwit(141) code or detail in bips to start making blocks of segwit template format, or include segwit transactions on august 1st..
the split was due to 148/91... not 141

by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit flagging blocks before segwit even activated(141) on 24th august 2017.

so lets recall some messages from a certain person who spent years denying it ever happened, even contradicting himself

first lets see him admitting it was used.. right when it happened.

as you can see. on august 1st 2017 he was happy to admit 148 led to 91 which would in 3 weeks lead to 141(segwit)
and admits the split occured on the day everyone said it would due to the actions of the 141 91 stuff

heck there are other posts where he also admits that due to the split BCH had to change its magic to actually be an altcoin rather that a reject block orphaner fighting against bitcoin. heck he even mentions how gmaxwell had to plead to BCH to add some changes, heres one: (note the date, ill explain later)

the reason why they had to change the EDA, was because it wasnt its own altcoin, just borrowing blockdata. it was a split based on the 148/91 and so the split of bch begun at the same difficulty as bitcoin
(a true altcoin just copying blockdata but wanting to go-it alone without the mandatory cause, would start at a near 0 difficulty(EDA))

and then.. here he is denying things happened. (as you can tell in 2017- april 2019 date shows how he knows it happened in 2017 . and admits it in 2019.. 2 months later, below = contradicting himself)
here he is saying that no one used those bips. and the bips were not mandatory (facepalm+laugh to his own contradiction)
and for years after he was saying
"it never happened", "there is no mandatory", "bips didnt activate until after 24th aug 2017", "there was no split".. just so he can be a social drama queen showing off loyalty to some core devs

there are many many more posts where he says there was no split (although the world can see BCH exists),

 yea i removed some insults from his post but they were just his usual boring ramblings. but as you can tell he is the one thats being uncivilised and contradictory. which then prompts me after years, to bite back.
again i dont feel sympathy for him playing the victim card now, because he was the instigator by doing his contradiction games just to play debater and cause reason for him to act uncivilised as part of his game.

but hey. ill give it a month and he will again forget about 148/91 before 141 and instead go back to insisting 141 activated without any mandatory bips. just so he can cause social drama for his new friends to hug him.

(not his first time with that tactic(forgetting he got debunked when he pretends nothing happened, forgetting his own admissions of what did happen))

yea all boring social drama.

his latest point of wanting to ask about devs can write any code. is to narrate that no one should/can stop core.
(something he is passionate about not wanting people to stop core from being the authority)
he then tangents to pretend that core cant mandate (due to lapse in his memory of events(the contradiction)).
but when circling back to the facts and not his narrative.
they did mandate and they got segwit activated without miners or users needing to upgrade software to actually use segwit.
because all they had to do was edit a couple bits in a block to signal something without needing to upgrade software.. "due to backward compatibility". pools were threatened to change bits because the 'limited' user that did use 148UASF were the main NYA agreement group that included some pools, merchant tools, payment services and exchanges. meaning they were the economic majority nodes of importance. .. which is why the threat worked. and on august 1st the rejected blocks caused the fork resulting in BCH, which core devs demanded they either stop, or change their 'magic' to not disrupt bitcoin

so any time you see a consensus upgrade described as "backward compatible", it means that it does not require majority to upgrade the software.

because bip148, 91, 141 did not need general users to upgrade software to cause activations of segwit. it worked by the threats of the economic nodes(exchanges/payment gateways)

at the technical level. in raw data of blockchain and transactions... there is no BTC.
everything is measured in sats.

there will be 2,099,99,999,769,000 shareable units that people can have
EG, saying there is only 190,000 units of gold. makes gold seem scarce, but when you then reveal thats the measure is tonnes. which no one can afford a whole tonne, and everyone only buys grams, ounces. you start to realise there is actually
6,702,053,000 shareable units of ounces.. not 190,000 shareable units of tonnes

everyone in every house has some gold. its in devices its in jewellery its everywhere. its not actually scarce

its not actually about 'scarcity' its about absolute limit.(final supply limit)
after all many think there is only 250,000 tonnes (190k(60k yet to be mined)).. yet they now talk about asteroid mining beyond the 250,000tonne cap, gold becomes less 'strict' in its supply economics

supply limit. and scarcity are separate terms

i guess doomad never learned anything from 19th century economics of the gold/bank note scenario

heres a joke:
2 bitcoiners enter a bar. A has funding locked bitcoin and funding locked litecoin, B has only funding locked bitcoin..
.. 2 men leave a bar, A has 2x confirmed bitcoin, B has litecoin

in bitcoin thats called 'thunderdome: 2 may enter, one may leave'
in litecoin thats called '1 in 1 out'

oh and to pre-empt another social game.
even doomads favoured service 'thor' can create channels without needing both partners to fund(have coin) on both sides.
so doomad is aware its not a 1 in 1 out

and thats the punchline that makes me laugh. doomad knows, but pleads ignorant to set a narrative

---

and to rath_
seems to again forget, to edit/change a htlc in a commitment or update/edit/change/sign a commitment . they need to know what needs changing.
he forgets the messages that communicate the information.

he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics htlc right at the start.
he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics is online just from network gossip
he also thinks alice or bob or carol know diana is online and liquid to forward just from network gossip

he thinks the deal is complete as soon as alice looks at network gossip and signs a commitment with bob

---

to blackhatcoiner below
i didnt avoid the consensus stuff, i even stated bips related to how devs changed its parameters. mandate(148/91) before sw active(141)

the stuff about anyone free to use any software is not about consensus. its about freedom to use any software.
whether its a lite wallet, spv, a altnet, wallet
consensus should only change when majority of nodes have an agreed framework to obide by.
consensus should not change by pre block rejecting before the new feature activates

EG
deciding to lite wallet  is a freedom but has nothing to do with consensus
your free to use this forums software or just write aimlessly on microsoft word.. nothing to do with consensus

all im saying is tonga has no internet. so anyone actually in tonga wont get any bitcoin for 2 weeks.
im guessing the ex-member of parliament is not actually in tonga, if he is able to tweet and get crypto.

if the scenario was say
US. new orleans had a tsunami, and there was no road access for 2 weeks. and an ex-congressman of N'O' was accepting donations of bottled water.. i too would respond, "but no one can get bottled water into N'O' for two weeks, and it appears the ex-congressman is no where near N'O'"

..
its the little details that amuse me.
while pleading for donations. the ex-member of parliament then goes on a new business plan advert about the country spending masses of money on power stations for crypto industry..
..usually at a time of disaster the first topic to discuss is how to get power, water, utilities and shelters fixed.
.. usually if someone has a communication method in and out of a disaster zone, they would report more about the disaster

im not saying the donations are a lie.
its just a bit of an oddity/amusement to the whole narrative going along side the donation plea.

he seems to have the ability to retweet all the donation stuff and crypto projects of the future. but seems a little lacking on tweeting any important messages of whats actually happening in tonga

in response to darkvortex's social drama post of no substance
(yawn)
not beaten
but just seeing your losing your game, where its the same game, just different day. so its boring, so i have better things to do then entertain you lot with your games

and so i realised more and more with each day that life is too short to care about cheaters playing games, acting cultish.
i have no sympathy for those types of people.

it has been a good laugh watching a group of people trying to play victim as if they want or pretend to deserve respect and sympathy..even after they themselves have been the instigators of their own injured emotions.

but anyways, its starting to sound a bit cultish now. wanting to convert people over to their cause and insulting anyone that does not join their altnet. arguing with anyone that shows the flaws of their utopian religious place of worship.

sorry but im not interesting in joining the cult. its not the promised land, its not the utopia you lot present it as.
but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death.
your group is not the first that tried to insinuate that bitcoin cant cope, survive, grow. your not the first to try cutting the legs off bitcoin to stop it moving forward. so, goodluck with whatever new hobby you try next. just dont try to waste 5 years trying to turn your hobby into a cult for your own personal enrichments of getting people to join your commune

nice try, but you failed.

have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition

there is only one thing you have all got right, i dont need friends or loyalty to back up my opinions. i just have to quote the data. even if you dont want to read it.. others can, others do

many people newbies and the young try to conceptualise the 'supply demand' of high school economics the over simplify the market supply of price and value, to suggest bitcoin has no value and is just 100% speculative..

so ill have a stab at explaining the market 'supply/demand' stuff

market price
bitcoins market price is not based on the coins mined(supply) this minute because they wont hit the market today.
nor based on the 19million in circulation.

bitcoins market price is based on the coins being put on market order lines inside exchanges.

if its was 'supply' 'demand' of circulation.. then 2012 supply was only ~11mill coins. vs todays 19mill means there is more supply now. yet prices are higher

however as i said its not based on the coins in general circulation.
in the same comparison. coins in exchanges had order lines of 1-1000btc.  now those order lines are 0.001- 1
which is where the market order 'supply' has more effect on the price.

why,? easy explanation is because its those actual coins being exchanged for a price that are setting the price. hoarded coins never on the market dont affect the price. because they are not on the market to change the price.
..
market value
even if there is 190,000 tonnes of gold. and a possible say 50,000 more yet to be mined on earth, does not matter.
what does matter is the smaller allotment held by gold markets doing the actual price alterations.

these price alterations are done by their owners deciding the value which they want to sell at,
based not on high school simplistic but non informing "supply/demand" but on many factors, some of which explain supply and demand. but other factors are involved outside of supply and demand. such as the value that underlines the price.
..
some reasons why buyers pay a premium
do they find it useful, yes
is it hard to get it elsewhere,
is it convenient to get it on the market
is the market offering it at a rate easier,cheaper than other acquisition methods

some reasons why buyers refuse to pay a premium
do they find it useful, not so much
is it easier to get it elsewhere,
is it inconvenient to get it on the market
is the market offering it at a rate higher than other acquisition methods

for instance
in japan it costs about ~$70k to mine a bitcoin. so japanese are very very willing to buy bitcoin rather then mine
in USA/europe it costs about ~$40k to mine a bitcoin. so US/EU jump back and forth in their decision
in kazahkstan it costs about ~$30k to mine a bitcoin. so kazahk's prefer/willing to mine bitcoin rather then buy

why its not just silly 'supply demand' speculation, but is about value
the reason bitcoins has value of between $30k-$70k window is not silly 'supply/demand' high school economics
its because of the cost of acquisition of different area's from cheapest to most premium

the price decisions by each trader trading each second that affect the price. then changes the price within that window of value, and those whims of greed, hope of human decision. change depending on circumstance

in 2012. everyone could acquire bitcoin privately either mining or buying from a friend for under $100. so absolutely no one would pay a $60k premium for it back then.

but with mining cost increases and then the acquirers then buying above $100 setting the new low end cost window above $100. and the repeated change of acquirers costs as things are mined and traded at gradually rising prices. it now near impossible to get bitcoin for $20k from any private source. and so peoples value is now way above $20k minimum

its not about how many coins. its about the value even for 0.001 coin no longer being under $20 ($20k/1btc)
it doesnt matter if someone is offering 100btc or 0.01btc.

he values 100btc the same as 0.01btc  ($4.3m and $430 respectively). both being that of $43k/btc today.

no one ever things that because most orders today are done at 0.001 per order. that someone with 100btc must sell at the 2014 price rate where 100btc was the market order processed supply per order

its actually decided by the person selling who doesnt want to sell at a loss, so never going to sell for less than he acquired it

it doesnt matter if there is an order of 0.001coin or 1 coin or 100 coin
if someone was to trade
0.001coin for $43
1coin for $43,000
100coin for $4.3m

the supply is different but each of the will still trigger a market order and thus a price of $43,000 a coin.
its not like market orders are fixed to only 'fill' if 1 whole coin is sold. and it needs a buyer to pay a whole coins price to buy it.
even in low order sell amounts. buyers can also buy in small buy amounts

sellers with 100coin are not forced to sell all their coin. and they wouldnt. because they know it will hurt themselves selling down the orderline. they prefer to only sell 0.001 at a time to not affect the market.
it might take longer but they do this to avoid selling at a loss. and also to avoid affecting the price negatively for them

buyers wanting 100coin are not forced to buy all 100 coin. and they wouldnt. because they know it will hurt themselves buying up the orderline. they prefer to only buy 0.001 at a time to not affect the market.
it might take longer but they do this to avoid buying at an expense. and also to avoid affecting the price negatively for them

so whats important to know(summarised):
bitcoins value is not linked to supply/demand. its value is window bottom and top limits, based on different costs to get it, lowest to highest. for different regions for different reasons
bitcoins price moves within this window, based on the human emotion whims of different people in different places with different decisions for many reasons

..
i say all this because some people want to use highschool economics to start playing games that bitcoin has no value and that the price is only based on vapour speculation. rather than understanding the value window hidden around the price speculation

i have no issues if people want to use sidechange, custodial wallets or LN
they should just, if they want to act like advertisers for those niche services. actually explain why and how its different from bitcoin. (which could actually create positive PR for the niche service). and give an honest view of the risks so users are risk aware and know of the pitfalls and issues.

the attempts to say it is bitcoin it does what bitcoin does but better. and trying hard to put bitcoin down by tempting people over to these niche services like its the utopian solution. well thats bad PR

even with these 160posts in this topic. the amount of contradictions played by a certain group, doing every game in the book to try getting people to not highlight the differences, issues, flaws. is just callous actions by that group
which is why i lost respect for them. and dont sympathise for them when they play victim AFTER their own callous acts

if they actually wanted a good niche service, they would actually be proud to look for flaws and learn the differences and try to get it to work. rather then trying to shut up people that are highlighting the bugs and differences.
those working on bitcoin from 2009-2015 actually inspired desire to point out flaws/bugs. to fix them in bitcoins
now it seems they want to highlight issues to push people into different altnets and services.
those working on LN want to shut up anyone highlighting bugs/flaws/issues with LN, trying to push people into using a less secure network

as for those thinking i jump across many subjects in this topic. well when there are more then a couple different people asking me different questions. all asking me for answers. crying when i dont answer them, then yes my answers will be on different subjects.. but each answer is on the subject the person wants
EG
doomad wants mainly consensus talk but mostly social drama
darkvortex wants social drama/emotion
rath wants LN talk but some social drama, and to play contradiction mind games
darkhatcoiner, picks and chooses. but mostly social drama

so yes in the last 2 pages i have jumped from talking about LN to then answer doomads consensus stuff because he cries that i ignore him. then rath wants LN answers because he cries that i ignore him.(its like tennis, and im the ball in their game)

yea its one of their games. and it bores me
especially when "switzerland" has not tried setting the topic of the day or mediated on the cross talk, to try to get to the crux of a certain topic, one at a time like he wanted

heck i tried to get a summarised view on a certain subject but even that was too much to ask for the main few of the group.
yes LoyceV gave a respectful try at answering the questions. the others, well they just game played to play contradiction/grammar games.

it got boring. and all i could see was their narrative games of just playing tennis with each other, thinking i was the ball.
i dont care for these games. it solves nothing.
so im going to let them go play with each other in their own little worlds.

night!

and your quote you underlined
when they were assigned work

and then re read the page from the prospective of MINING. not rewarding

its pool MINING and solo MINING
not pool REWARDING and solo REWARDING

the main task of a pool is to manage the blocktemplate and the getwork messages.

i know end users that never mined before and dont know about bitcoin technically only think about and care about the reward. but the technical side is different

EG
most users think a car is 'vroom vroom speedy thing' but a car is actually a motorised vehicle for transport of driver and passengers

i know you might want to spend multiple posts being a social drama queen saying "franky wrong coz waitress deserves a tip'
but a waitress is actually a worker for a restaurant. her job is not "tipy tipy" its "clean and serve".

i know a certain group wants to play games, telling people to prune their node and not store blocks, and use altnets instead of bitcoin. and now i have been seeing some trying to break the mining protocol by trying to make mining seem like a useless task apart from getting paid by greedy people... sorry but mining is important and its about the mining of blocks. not the social drama of pretending its only about the tips.

here is a compromise of accurate description of terms

pool mining, 98% solo rewarding

strange thing is:

tonga's internet line is disconnected, they have no internet for 2 weeks

as your own words have been saying for years (2018+) that bitcoin never used any mandated activation..
(pretending you have no knowledge that 148/91 were used)
contradicting your 2017 stuff

you even said how you were unaware because you never personally used mandated software so you believe it didnt happen.

then in recent hours you contradict yourself by saying that the bips were used, but however only activated after segwit activated.. by which you are saying 148/91 activated on august 24th

but theymos and many others, and the blockchain data actually show 148/91 activated in late july and august 1st (before segwits august 24th activation.)

as for saying im wrong.. your evidence appears to be just quoting others in your friendship group that say im wrong.. .. and thats it.
thats social drama. not proof.

anyway. this topic has bored me again tonight. seems the certain group doesnt care about facts or data they just want to argue and contradict for the sake of arguing. maybe they should have a private get together with each other and talk amongst themselves and play around with each other, as they seem to like games soo much.

solo mining was a thing even before the reward had a value.
solo mining was about confirming transactions by collating transaction data and getting a difficult hash of that collected data.

you might have a tardis in your avatar, but you do realise this little detail.. you cant actually go back in time and change history with a tardis avatar


heck. i dont need a tardis avatar to have a sci-fi, fantasy entertainment view of history. i can actually find a real life documentary better way to look at history. its called searching up quotes, and statements made in history

https://braiins.com/stratum-v1
^ hint its all about the 'getwork' and blocktemplate stuff, not the reward share

bip91 is not segwit.
bip is the rule of threshold and evaluation of blocks.

bip91 ceases to be active when segwit(141) activates

it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141)


maybe you need to spend 5 years arguing with theymos

the split of old style blocks by miners refusing to flag for segwit, were rejected and 'nothing to see' on bitcoin of old blocks because they instead mined for BCH

the mandatory flag did work. and got its thresholds within days of activating the bips(148 and 91)

if you still want to deny that bips 148 and 91 were used. first go cry your blindness to theymos and pieter wuille and many others.
then try to read some block data of the flags noted during july and BEFORE august 1st

i know you want to pretend it all happened after segwit activated on the 24th of august. but thats just a laugh that you think there was no 148threat, there was no91 activity before august 24th.


yea remember 141, the actual segwit activation.. which happened on august 24th..
yea remember you admitting 148 threat happening and caused bip91 to activate affirming the threshold needed to get 141 BEFORE segwit activated

..
yea you forgot all that and later from like 2018 YOU went on a tangent that there was no split(BCH not exist in your mind) and how you pounded your chest saying segwit(141) was activated by <your random dream> not the 148/91 activity

not sure why you went contradictory but you did, and you continued for years

ok half a step forward.
you admit that bip91 was used. so you admit to the words of that bip

no two asics ever do the same work on any pool or any pool.
because thats just inefficient

its about who manages what work each asic should do. who collates the blocks to create the work to be done

analogy:
if you own a cleaning company. and there is 5 different toilets under your management and contract. and you direct the cleaners what to clean..
you dont send all cleaners to clean one toilet. you as a cleaning manager(pool) send one cleaner to each toilet and scrub each toilet until they are all clean

a solo cleaner chooses her own toilets to clean and cleans as many as she can without a manager telling her anything about a toilet

ckpool (hints in the name) do direct asics on what work to do. the asics dont have their own bitcoin node to collate data. they need to be managed and told what work to do.


.. gotta laugh at danny
waitress scenario.. he talks about the reward. not the work
funny part is in all three waitress scenarios.. he talks about a waitress that has a restaurant boss..

scenario 1(old solo, concept accepted for over a decade) should be
a restaurant owner also cleans and serves the tables. he works for no one he is the solo owner and worker of the restaurant, he decides what work to do, no one tells him. he keeps all the tips

scenario 2(early pools, concept accepted for over a decade) should be
a restaurant has several workers. the restaurant owner sets the work for them and he takes the tips. and evenly splits the tips at the end of the month to whomever worked based on their share of work, even if they were not personally tipped

scenario 3(ck pool) should be
a restaurant has several workers. the restaurant owner sets the work for them, but they only get paid in tips, and if they work a table and get a tip they keep 98% of the tip.

..
solo MINING emphasises the work. and who manages the work. its not about the reward.
ck pool is a 98% reward POOL. not a solo managed local independent miner

contradictions.
i know your plaything the
Doomad: "anyone can run software they code/choose" EG to have colourful backgrounds or store data locally differently
just to game contradict
Doomad: "no one can run software and change the protocol alone
just to game contradict
Doomad: "changes to the protocol only happened in my opinion through bip9 because i never run UASF or 91"
just to game contradict


yea you played this game.
but here is the thing.
mining pools actually got threatened by the NYA agreement of the ECONOMIC NODES (merchants, payment gates and exchanges and some other pools) that were using UASF. and pools fell inline flagging the bit number to activate segwit even if they had not upgraded their own software to run segwit.
blocks were then actively rejected that were not flagging it which then got the red line above its 90%threshold (it achieved 100%)
the fact that it achieved 100% in a week should be revealing as something odd even to you. as you and me both agree there is never 100% agreement in a wide community

it does not need 90% of all user nodes to upgrade their software before a consensus change happens.
the extra difference in 2017 is that it only needed the power players to run software that would reject normal/old blocks on a certain date.. which is what the threat and action was.


already answered.
i  know your saying: yea because you didnt use it you think its not part of bitcoin
well ill use your mindset
i never used LN software so its not part of bitcoin.. (and then you cry pleading the opposite)
but here is the thing
nothing on bitcoin shows anything about LN msats or LN gossip messages or even LN peer handshaking. so in bitcoins data/code and in cores peer handshaking there is no LN in bitcoin.. meaning LN is not bitcoin

but what you do find in bitcoin blockdata and bitcoin cores bips is that there is stuff related to how the consensus change occured in 2017 aswell as devs and many others saying bips91 and 148 were used, where even they are backed up by the blockdata

ignorance because you didnt use software. does not make it ok to pretend there is no proof that events didnt happen.
it just means you lack the ability to find the proof to change your mind, because you want to close yourself off from having proof infront of you

heck i didnt use the software, but i atleast know it happened and blockdata bips and quotes from the devs back up my version of events
even if you didnt run the software doesnt mean it didnt happen

---

read!


and in summary.
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#returning-errors
or even just the expiry of not getting a response
(there are many ways for a route to fail due to lack of liquidity)

..
oh and if you want to loopback to the network map construct of having routes before pay to not need to gossip nodes to find route.
well a good privacy thing is that nodes dont have to network gossip their fee's and updates to become known on a public map.

you can still route through them via their partners by sniffing out the fee's when trying routes. meaning they only tell you the fees on the response of a route success which then totals the fees to then let alice know how much to pay her partner if she chose that route

and no finding a route using all the messages and getting a response when there is a path. is not something that needs to edit blockchain formatted transactions. nor needs them signed, it can be done via messages of gossip

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]