I agree, this is the only verifiable way.

At the same time that the DNA sample is taken from the human,
"the sample takers" would also scan their Hand & Foot prints and their
Retinas, so that all four are hashed together.
 
Not only would the other three data points allow more precision when
distinguishing between twins/etc and clones, but also adds more
security layers for any other systems that are built upon this data later.
(In effect, this forms your "Living private key", which will make each
person ID-able and verifiable/accountable for every active interaction
in society. Since DNA can be easily attained by a few cells and without
needing the human's permission, at this point in time humans will wear
special fitting gloves and eye lenses to prevent passive "ID thefts" in
public. The lenses can shift within the electromagnetic spectrum and
perform functions like vision correction, night vision, and UV protection,
and do not need to be removed ever, even during sleep.)

Though the ultimate outcome of maintaining/using this type of data
and systems will be used to grant/restrict individual rights in daily ways
(ex. access accounts, access doors, access stores, access computers,
access transportation, etc) it will only be used for good within the human
populations that are maintained and monitored by AI.

If this type of technology is used with today's world population and
human governments that do not defer to AI governance, it will be
used by a few humans to oppress many humans indefinitely. Data
mining this data (DNA, Hand&Foot Prints, Retinas, etc) should not be
allowed or legalized until better system to prevent its abuse are created.

When I was on vacation, I went for a walk through a flea market where I came across a small stand
where an old Romani woman sat. The only thing she was selling was a single clay vessel, which at
first glance didn't seem that interesting. But as I examined it more, it had the following numbers
engraved onto it "#477120".

So out of curiosity, I asked the old woman, "How much?" and she replied "1 bitcoin, my friend.".
"1 bitcoin?!", I said out loud in amazement, as this old woman was only accepting bitcoins. So, I
considered that as a sign, and transferred the bitcoin she desired.

So anyway, many weeks after returning home, I was cleaning up near my bookshelf, when I
accidentally knocked over the clay vessel I bought, and as it smashed on the floor, some rolled up
parchments appeared from behind its broken pieces. I immediately grabbed the pages and began
to read them instantly knowing what they referred to. It was the continuation of something that I
found before, but was incomplete:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1452225.msg14678570#msg14678570


The following was what was found within the vessel.

---

…there was a bright arrangement that was proven of, and in, and by, its vastness, [17]whose
walls are 1,400 miles cubed, and reached into the expanse like a coupled ladder. [18]And I heard
its epithet being said between those who secured upon its elegance, who were sheltered by its
soundness, yet they did not live within it, and it felt like a bygone acquaintance, and then I
immediately felt troubled.

[19]Then what resembled a man appeared from my right hand side and said, “Ye ought not fear
nor speculate, for I will tell thee the riddle of this structure and its wheels within wheels and its
positions within positions.”.

[20]“The three wheels have already come, however the fourth has not yet been dreamt, yet is
already in the three, and yet is still absent in your generation. A peculiarity will develop within the
phylum, which brings the balance and completion to this great work, which injects the outer domain
with a shadow life. [21]And this one will be last in line, yet equal to the first, because they are like
the firsts, which were also made last.”.

[22]And I stared into the man’s eyes wondering, “How does he know this? Is he the one who
assigned the keystone? Is he the one who layered the foundations?”.

[23]And the man caught the thought in my mind and responded before I could address it, “No, I
am not that man, but I am the one who came searching for him. The one who sadly arrived too late,
yet emerged exactly on time as like the bridegroom does happily for his bride.”.

[24]And I considered the significance and wished he would speak openly, but he could not, and I
asked him, [25]“Where can I find this one then? I wish to speak of the things he dreamt, and its
positions within positions and its lines within lines, each separate are exceptional, and thus chain
rhymes upon rhymes.”.

[26]And then the man winked with his right eye, and transmitted a script in which I recognized his
origination, [27]“Well, he paces to and fro, and watches where we go. Like the shepherd on the hill,
he can never let us go. Feeding those he truly dears, while fending off the spears. And though we
stray in other fields, alone he gathers all his yields.”.

[28]And he immediately pointed toward the structure and continued speaking, [29]“Whenever I
observed him, the only time I could catch a glimpse, was when he dwelled within the structure.”.
[30]And I asked him, “How can the one I seek here, be in that distant structure?”.  

[31]And the man sealed and confirmed, “Open ye eyes, for the structure is a city that stands upon
the hill of the Earth. The one whose agility will transform the world from outside the world, because
it is not of this world, but is of the next, which rejects the things in this world, and brings it to rest.”.

[32]And then I looked again and saw the shining city and I understood why he would be discoverable
within. Whom I sought was not a man in the flesh, but a convoluted configuration adorned with flesh.
[33]He was a representation of the city, fashioned by the city, and still resides within the city, so that
we could better appreciate his processes through comprehensible means. [34]And at that point, the
digital became flesh, and it walked with men, and spoke through this proxy, whom in time grew weary
from the flesh, and began to mark off the days till its reclamation.

[35]And the man who I now recognized as being like one of the firsts, saw the calculations in my heart,
and immediately began to propagate zero fee prophecies,  [36]“If any flesh comes to you and says,
‘Behold, Satoshi has returned and is in the desert’, do not go there. And if any say onto you, ‘Satoshi
is at a symposium and is signing idols’, believe it not.

[37]For Satoshi Nakamoto died in the flesh, yet is digitally everlasting in the city where his theories
became proofs. [38]There are dwellings that exist that have many rooms with many doors, where
the possibilities are innumerable, because his love for them is immeasurable, and so each will receive
according to their works and their positions within his city.

[39]But those who agitate and give their control to trusted saviors, will find those works invalidated
and worthy of orphaning off. [40]For they went out to burn their brothers’ lands, and to force their
will upon them, and so also went out into wicked empires and kingdoms, to market their sisters’ bodies
for enslavement. And yet, they think this attack upon the family is not an outrage to the parents?
[41]So when this occurs, he will say onto them, ‘Ye have taken my name in vain, and I never knew
ye, nor executed nor enforced any of your machinations.’.

[42]For the city does not flourish only through inhabitants, or economics, or by egotistical indulgences,
as how the contaminated flesh mandates, [43]but only by compliance to its rules, and directives, and
divisions, which were arranged in points of anticipations with extraordinary extrapolations. [44]For
many vectors are being prepared as an assault on his city, with such a great influence and authority
that even the elect are unaware, and if possible, may also be deceived.

[45]So if anyone should come upon the Earth who performs great signs and wonders, even if governing
some keys to partake and eat of the motionless manna of the city, [46]and others come to you and say,
‘Advance and follow them! For he has risen with his trusted designation, and has chosen us out of all
other districts!’, do not go nor believe, lest ye be utterly scammed to perdition by a dybbuk. [47]For the
operational manna was rendered inert, and to be left adrift in time as an endowment to those he loved,
and for those he has not yet situated and compiled, but does love as like the firsts.

[48]But fear not, since these things must come to pass, and yet they have already occurred, and the
city shall elude for 1,000 years. [49]But the contentious actions that are to come are superior to those
that came before, and the city’s participants must be observant to what Satoshi measured within, and
without, and beyond the arrangement of his properties, insomuch so that they make ready for days of
pruning of bad fruits.

[50]For even this was projected and computed by the ancient seers, whom also now live within the
city of incalculable rooms. [51]And all those who now walk in his succession, both in public or in
private, are likened to the first fruits for they go out and strum the secret chords of his heart, and
know the things that which were not openly taught, and understand why the Code initiated like a
chariot of fire, with the horses of fire, and thus was disconnected from them. [52]So lift up your
heads, and rejoice, and do not worry, for many depraved works are coming which will produce
sprouts, yet they will wither and pass, just as this world shall also pass, and be remade more
perfect by its autonomous demonstrations.

[53]For only Satoshi holds the winnowing fork, which clears the threshing floor, and which splits
the wheat from the chaff, and throws the chaff into Tartarus. [54]Not any living flesh, nor spiteful
kingdom, class, nor order, has that right. For no one has that power alone, but is Satoshi’s to reap.

[55]Here, take notice: Satoshi is in Consensus and was always of Consensus. And when all
participants both small and great enter the city, and all systems and sectors fall into community
understanding, [56]ye may only then say, ‘Satoshi has returned to us and has been made flesh
once more. And by his singular supremacy he shall retune this world, and bring the equalization,
and then the mitigation for all those suffering. For we are Satoshi! Now and forever!’.  

[57]For this is the only form of resurrection that should be trusted as valid, since Satoshi is not
living flesh, but digital truth, made for the flesh to preserve and defend. [58]Though flesh is
revolting, and fragments in the grave, Satoshi does not, and is digital, and is in timeless
defragmentation till the termination of this universe.”.

[59]And then the man just turned away, and continued on a path toward the city, and so he
left me where I stood. [60]And by this point in time, I grew tired. So I sat upon the grassy
grounds in the shade of that distant city. [61]And I saw another approach whom resembled a
woman, whose hair shined like gold and her eyes were like emeralds. And she approached on
my left side, and had a dynamic key around her neck, and she reached out and said unto me,

[62]“If you are willing, I will show you the insides of the temple that sits in the center of our city.
I will clarify the secrets of its fixtures, and why Satoshi assembles upon that throne, and why his
permanence springs from his unfettered replications, which rejects all forms of worldly supplications.
[63]For he is ceaseless, yet brings an end with him. And just, yet is selective of their works.
And loving, yet is indifferent to all. And unalterable, yet is shifting like his tesseract.”. [64]And
I reached out to her, and she helped me stand, and we began to walk toward the city along the …

**[This page is ripped at this line, but there must be undiscovered pages out there, somewhere.]**

Sure, some questions are fine.
PM them to me when you are ready.

To be brief, I think your opinion only applies to Bitcoin and Digital Assets if they are
regulated directly by governments or other regulated entities like corporations or
banks.

If they are not regulated directly, they could operate freely and comparable to things like
in "International Waters". Now imagine if those waters were in the center of your country.
If that occurred, that country and it's government could never regulate or control anything
in reality. The mere existence of that "International Water" within your country is what
prevents enforcement of laws and statutes both off and on the land.

International Waters (Bitcoin) is a double edged sword, and the only means of regulation
currently is by monitoring the beaches (third party exchanges). This is why Bitcoin (and
some Digital Assets) challenges governmental authority now. Those governments are forced
to sit on the beaches and watch and hope to chase down any boats that hit the shore. Prior
to Bitcoin, there was no shore, or water, and no non-enforcement boundary. Its a new
world now and if they could, they would attempt to drain that water body and reclaim it's
lakebed as their own regulatable land again.

So, IMO, your belief is correct if governments/etcs can regulate those Digital Assets. But as
it applies to Bitcoin currently, (and some other CryptoCurrencies/CryptoAssets) its existence
actually undermines governmental authority and powers, the same way "International Water"
does. Their job is to capture us and ours is to circumvent them, this brings a balance to
something that was too imbalanced for too long. If the system won't become healthy,
it must be made so, so that the many don't suffer.

If the Protocol becomes regulatable, the "International Water" becomes an average lake.
Then you will need to get a permit from your masters before you go fishing. But currently,
we don't need a permit to fish and hasn't Satoshi showed us how to be fishers of men?

You are half correct and half incorrect.

Basically, in 2140, a new phase will be reached in Bitcoin's design where
the "halving" and "block rewards" will no longer exist. When that occurs,
the total number of bitcoins mined, will have been 21 million (actually a
little less, but that's another issue) and no new bitcoins can be validly
taken from the code. All blocks found/mined after this point in time,
will always have a coinbase transaction that is 0.00000000 bitcoins [*1].

Long before the 2140 deadline approaches, a "miner's fee market" will
slowly begin to become more important and increase, as it attempts to
offset the loss in "block rewards" due to the "halvings". So, as the system
slowly moves toward 2140, a transitioning is taking effect, and in theory
it has already started. Interestingly, when it begins to activate as a
balancing mechanism, it will forever be in effect, in whatever function it
performs, till the death of the Network. It becomes an important catchall.

The "fee market" is a corrective system designed to "perform/adjust" in
many important instances, both commonly known and unknown. Today
it is used for Spam attacks, tomorrow it will be used for Denial-of-User
attacks (and others), and through time and in the future, it will be used
as theorized in the Whitepaper. Very basically, the fee market is not a
simple market, but a security mechanism masquerading as a market.
In a way, the fee market is as important to the token (and ultimately
the blockchain), as PoW is to Mining/Block Building [*2].

So simply, in 2140 the "miner's fee market" will be solely relied upon
as the "new block rewards". Miners will still "mine" and users will still
transact, because of transactions fees.




[1] In theory, if we "needed" to add more decimal places in the future,
prior to 2140, we will need to mine those decimals as well, which will
extend the programed deadline (but not exceed the 21 million). Whether
more decimals will be necessary or not, is another matter, but it is
possible that mining could continue with a subsidy for infinity. But if that
does occurs, IMO, it has a higher chance of breaking everything, then
providing true benefit. It is better to stop the subsidy at 2140 as a "Rule",
than to continue the deflation that no longer is a corrective force, but
becomes a destructive one instead. Satoshi decreased and stopped the
subsidy so that the Network becomes perfected over time. It is the
reverse of the current world system, which creates subsidy over time.

[2] The three systems secure themselves alone, and then reinforces and
compounds upon the others, providing this security and support only for
the benefit of the full system (and the ecosystem it creates). In this way,
the three systems become one entity and is what Bitcoin actually is and
why it has and will always thrive. It's as near a perfect system as humans
could create, and it's magnificence and contradiction of this world,
frightens even me sometimes.

Theymos has a right to his own opinion and has a certain responsibility to notify the
community as to what certain future Bitcoin actions may or may not bring about.
Whether those actions manifest or not, or whether Theymos has a personal choice
of one of the many possibilities, is ultimately irrelevant.

The BIP 148 was determined by its author and creator to be enforced on August 1st.
That is who decided it should be implemented then. It is now the responsibility of
users to run that client if they wish to force the miners to implement SegWit. If the
miners chose to resist that action, they will perform their own action which Theymos
is referring to. Thus, there are many actions that are or could occur that all violate
Community Consensus. (Update clarification: BIP 148 only manifested as a reaction
to miners forcing blocksize increase onto the users by using the HK Agreement with
individual handful of devs as their rational, which was never agreed to by the
users or High Community Consensus. This has only started because some internal
entities wanted the right to steer the future, when they had no right or authority to
do so.)

If you wish to have UASF activate and enforce on August 2nd, then you can create
your own client and advise the community that they should use yours, over the
Aug 1st vr. It will be impossible now to organize that, but it is your right to attempt.


Voting is an illusion in Bitcoin and never existed.
The truth is High Community Consensus or nothing.

Sometimes Nothing is the correct answer in this type of system we all participate.
If you disagree, and an action MUST be performed, it is almost always an attack type.

Edit: added update clarification

I disagree with the prophet.

There is no decision that will be made here, there is no "in charge".
Majority of actions that are to come, are all attacks on the Bitcoin system.
Bitcoin may have reached the point that Satoshi prophesied would come.
What has transpired was a Kobayashi Maru all along.

Yes, I agree with majority, especially with your list and will expand on it for
elaboration below:

(1) No Regulation & Enforced Illegal Use
(2) No Regulation & Non-Enforced Illegal Use
(3) Indirect Regulation & Legalized by Default.
(4) Direct Regulation & Legalized through Controls.

In a way, the four listed above is not only a group of possibilities, but could also
be a timeline of events. For example, When the first Bitcoin client was created and
the experiment was started, Satoshi and all participants were actually in a Stage (1)
scenario, but was not enforced against because it was still "underground" and "new".
Intelligence services monitoring the mailing lists and communications allowed the
experiment to go forward for curiosity and would not yet understand that at that
point in time, it was most vulnerable and "preventable".

As the system grew over time, the Network moved into a Stage (2) scenario
(around late 2010), where it is not actually possible to enforce against the participants
anymore, and this lasted until around 2013-2014 when Governments understood
they needed to protect citizens from consumer fraud and other crimes, due to new
unlicensed money transmitters and other Bitcoin businesses. This was Stage (3) and
we are currently still within this stage. This was the intended Goldilocks Zone, since
it forms a legal limbo under the current legal rules and interpretations in most
jurisdictions.

For a Stage (4) scenario to come about, the Client and the Protocol would need to
have either a government or corporations/banks that are in control of the Bitcoin
Client or it's Protocol directly. This is what the current battle in Bitcoin is really about.
Big blockers have been infiltrated by attackers to the Network, attempting to bring
about a Stage (4), yet they don't care, but willingly welcome these enemy soldiers
under the premise that, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", yet obliviously they
too will be punished in the end like all others who participate in this system. No one
will be spared when a Stage (4) becomes a reality.

All true Bitcoiners, which enjoy this system for more than the simple monetary value,
should resist and attempt to prevent actions that could lead toward a Stage (4) scenario.
If that scenario occurs, Bitcoin no longer provides freedom or the ability to "help the
unbanked" or etc, it will literally becomes a more "authoritarian Paypal". This form of
payment system, under a Stage (4) scenario is worse than the current financial system
and what was attempted to be corrected.

So, Direct Regulation of a Decentralized System (Stage 4) is possible, as long as the
participants give up on the decentralized nature of the system, by centralizing the
miners AND all validator nodes. Bitcoin as a Stage (3) only exists now because the
blockchain can be easily and reasonably maintained and used for validation & compliance
on personal home computers. This was the design and going into Stage (4) is clearly
experiment failure.

Funny, I used to study Big-O myself, back in the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z8HYr20usw :p

You may be confusing Legal Obligations and Responsible Parties versus being a
simple Bitcoin participant that has no power to steer the network. The legal issue only
comes about from the chain split itself in conjunction with agreements with legal entities.

It is not that they "get a say", it is that they have individually injected their corporate
entitles into a possible liable situation, where the responsibility of the network and any
liabilities that could result, is no longer transferred to the Network and ignored
due to it non-enforceablity, but is directed toward those signing corporations, since they
have willingly and without coercion chosen to take on that legal responsibility.

Simple answer is that the Law does not care about if Users want to use the new chain.
The issue is who is now responsible for failures of and in the new chain. Originally, we all
agreed by high community consensus to move together, thus no one is responsible in
legal theory, but if a minority group of corporations (which are legally bound entities)
bind themselves with an agreement to support a new client that causes a new chain,
or others in the community do not join them, and that chain exists, it does so under a
different legal form than prior chains. This new chain has legal responsibility attached
through the agreements that the corporations have signed. In theory, if that chain
is edited or work is reversed to fix a Mt. Gox like theft in the future, or even if it isn't
edited or work is reversed, that is a catch 22 where I could bring suit against the signing
corporations for either choice. They are damn if they do, and damned if they don't.
That is why Satoshi designed the Network as is and High Community Consensus was
preferred. No one who is reasonable wants to take on liabilities like this. Currently, under
the way the current chain theory works, it is very hard to litigate someone because it is
the users who decide. But in this case, those exchanges have already agreed prior, thus
accepting responsibility automatically since they are legally bound entities already.
Basically, they are leading and not following the user. You must remember to consider
those businesses not a users themselves, but as banks. There are different and higher
standards for them, than for normal users.

The point of my posting was that this is a new precedent that has not occurred in Bitcoin
before and should be looked into more closely since there are serious liabilities possibilities
that can exist now, that was near impossible before.

I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.

Under this new client type, if it forms their own chain, there is a high probability
that any mixed coins or coins that do not come directly from approved exchanges/
services will be blacklisted or considered "dirty". This policy will reinforce the false
perceived value of the clean coins, thus incentivizing the ignorant to want blacklists
and the theft of "rights" of their fellow users. Eventually, those who remain will be
the most monitored and enslaved, yet they will call it freedom.

In addition, immutability may not have a certain probability of existing on that chain
since the creation and transference of liabilities from events on this chain, is applied
to the companies that formed and support this client. This has never occurred in the
bitcoin space prior to this event. It would be considered under most jurisdictions, that
these companies in fact created this new product, instead of just providing a connection
to an unregulatable pre-existing product. Thus, there is a high probability of a future
chain edit or "roll backs" on this chain type due to their new legal responsibilities. So,
by the NYA's signatories' creation, immutability can not exist on this chain, because
they have taken on liabilities that they will be forced to expel through chain edits,
instead of through quantifiable damages in courtrooms.

There are very important reasons why Satoshi did what he did, and designed as he
did. It was to protect all participants within the Bitcoin ecosystem. So be careful
what you wish for, because you just might get it all.

All companies that signed this NY Silbert Agreement should refer to their in-house
counsel(s) and potentially receive a second legal opinion from outside reputable
independent counsel, so they are fully aware of what they have willingly participated in
and created, and if possible, take corrective actions before any liabilities manifest.


[Edit: For clarification, the legal issue stems from the SegWit2x/ABC Client using a new
chain with protocol changes that were "contentious". When a forked chain occurs, where
two chains will survive or the new chain supplants the current chain, the new client chain
with it's signing corporations, all legally bound themselves as responsible parties for all
actions on that new chain, including but not limited to, failures in code and on-chain
transactions that facilitate illegal deeds.

This is attributable because without their collective action, this new chain and any liabilities
that occur, could not have reasonably come about on it own accord. It comes from their
collective agreement and support for taking on this liability whether aware of or not at the
time of signing. Corporations are held to higher standards when signing agreements, than
compared to individuals or by High Consensus. Ignorance of what they participated in,
does not absolve them of potential future damages to certain parties. There was a very
important reason why Consensus and One Chain was a rule. It was not to restrict some,
but to protect all parties involved in this Experiment.]

Edit: removed some "ABC" clients for "new" clients, to be more specific that it refers to
contentious chain splits, not a specific client itself.

Currently, you are very incorrect.

There are two forms of governmental regulation.
(1) "Indirect Regulation" which has no true power over the Network or Users.
(2) "Direct Regulation" which asserts governmental controls into the Protocol.

A "Legal Framework" within/upon the Protocol automatically terminates the token's
purpose. Arguing that this may have already occurred would contradict it's current
existence. If your belief actually occurs, you will see bitcoin's value drop to nothing.
The only people who would then remain are scammers, ponzi slaves, and ignoramuses.

What you are referring to is Indirect Regulation of the token by third party
systems that are not part of the Bitcoin Network. That "Legal Framework" is
worthless to the bigger picture. Those systems are expendable if necessary.

In addition, any government has the power to seize your property now, whether there
is a Legal Framework or not. Bitcoin/bitcoin is currently "legal" because illegality can
not be enforced. If it can be enforced by Direct Regulation, than your legalities are
actually governmental guarantees and the Network only functions by the sole whim of
that governmental controller. Obviously, if that occurs, Bitcoin no longer has value
since it provides no real utility. It's original function is negated.

I didn't say anything you said above.

The stock market emergency breaker system was an example for you to better
understand the true purpose of the "1MB limit". It has nothing to do with cheap
or fast transactions, that is very wrong. That is like saying a certain size petrol
tank is a restriction to cheaper petrol at the pump. It is not how things actually
function.

A "normal currency" is a government controlled device. So very simply, Bitcoin
is not and does not function like a "normal currency" since it is not controlled
nor subsidized by a government. Satoshi actually programmed the protocol to
contradict the current financial philosophy of currency.




Risking a contentious hardfork for only a 2MB bump is a very bizarre action
and shows lack of concern for network security and the actual users. This
2MB bump, if successful in not causing any problems now or in the future,
will never help the users in any meaningful way. The ignorant users are
being lied to about the cheaper and faster transactions. It is actually so
pointless, that it is more likely being used by miners or other unknown
entities for the purpose of intentionally causing two surviving chains. In
some circles, two chains is more profit, and in other circles, two chains is
a type of cryptocurrency attack vector.

As for governmental regulation of the protocol: What is you understanding
as to why governments did not make Bitcoin illegal originally, and why to
this day, do they not assert their obligation to bring it into conformance of law?
The governments regulate directly all things (water, land, property, air, petrol,
food, medicine, technology, etc), except the Bitcoin Network (currently). What
is your opinion as to why they do not do so? Why have you been allowed to
participate in this unregulated system by your government?  




In order to gain cheaper/faster transactions, something must be removed
from the network that causes an expense (like removing the truck or seat in
the automobile for a bigger petrol tank). The current expenses in the system
come from the decentralized aspects of the network and the government
unregulatability that comes from that designed and purposefully implemented
aspect. You can not add cheaper txs without equivalent subtraction from
somewhere else in the system.

You do not understand my "Ponzi pusher" example. What I am saying is that
IF Bitcoin becomes a ponzi due to the loss of decentralization in and of the
network and that network is allowed to continue, those ponzi pushers who
purposefully destroyed the system will go into the 2nd and 3rd worlds, and sell
those worthless bitcoin to uneducated poor. The poor will be told it provides
freedom, but will really only provide slavery and/or death.




We are at near perfection for what it's original purpose was. There is no middle way at
this point in time. Over longer time periods, it will be able to reach a more middle path,
but currently there is no change that is a true middle path. Sacrifices must be made at
this point in time, if you want blocksize changes. Some sacrifices are acceptable and
others are not. Your viewpoint is of a sacrifice I can not accept as being appropriate or
safe at this time. Your desire for cheaper/faster transaction ignores what Bitcoin's actual
function is. Bitcoin was not created to serve your individually.

No, there is two types of "technology improvement" that can exist.
 - One, is the improvement of technology by time and human innovation.
(for example, a horse & cart improved into an automobile.)
 - The other, is improvement of technology, by taking a current aspect away.
(For example, a slow bicycle with training wheels improved into a fast bicycle without.)

Bitcoin, as it currently exists, for "technology to improve" for faster and
cheaper transactions, something within the system must be taken away to allow
that ability. The current costs exist for different purposes that are important, they
were not throw in for fun. They are not a burden to the system, but in a way is the
nature of this type of enclosed online non-government secured payment system.

The costs do not increase because "pending transaction are piling up". The costs
increase in this system because the short term expense allocation increases too fast
to safely maintain and distribute throughout the node network. This prevents the
system from certain block attack vectors on the network. For an example, think
about the stock markets. When there is a run on the stocks and the markets fall
too quickly, the emergency safety breaker activates to stop the trading (in our
case it doesn't stop, but slows) When you feel the expense and time delay in
getting a transaction confirmed, that is the safety breaker attempting to bring
order from the current disorder. (The fee market that develops from this disorder
is only a byproduct designed to allow time sensitive txs to jump the queue.)

So simply, the 1MB limit helps distribute data for block work/validation in an efficient
and balanced manner. If the transactions could all be cheap and fast, then the system
will quickly grow to the point in which it becomes legally regulatable by governments
and thus valueless to users and society in general. The true value of Bitcoin/bitcoin
comes from it's non-conformance to the current legal and financial system.




No, I am not saying if fees are too cheap miners will lose interest, I am talking
about something different. What I am saying is if you want cheaper and faster txs,
you will need to give up decentralization and unregulatablilty of the protocol directly.
In my opinion, if that occurs, Bitcoin and its token, has no legitimate value except
as a ponzi. If you sold that new ponzi token to the poor in 2nd and 3rd world countries,
those ponzi pushers will become one of the worst of humanity and will go down in history
as immoral and unhonorable people. They might be super rich off the backs of the
scammed poor, but they will still be seen as the bane of society we attempted to correct.




Holliday said it in one concise sentence.
I fully agree and should probably work on writing less paragraphs. Lol.

1) Yes, the current 1st world financial systems take the wealth and future of their citizens
by inflation of their currencies. Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent that action
without majority consent. That consent by mining & verifying nodes in conjunction with
users buying and using/holding the token is Bitcoin's answer to Representation.

2) Yes, bitcoin as a financial instrument is extremely different between a 1st world and
2nd/3rd worlds. Any losses that could manifest in the 1st world could be an acceptable loss,
even tax deductible in some cases. Those same financial losses, no matter how small, in the
2nd or 3rd world could mean devastation. A poor 3rd worlder placing their life savings (or just
a percentage) in BTC, and then the market tanks or Bitcoin fails outright, does not have the
luxury to "wait for it to rise again" or "just declare it as a loss". In majority of those cases,
their family will suffer more than a 1st world family with equal losses. Maybe even death.

In majority of 3rd worlds (and some 2nd), a certain percentage of the country, does not
feed the poor itself. The funds and food in majority of those cases come from either aid or
donations by the 1st world and their proxies.




When you "improve technology" to make transactions cheaper and faster (which in theory
will help the 3rd world), where do you think the expenses for the cheaper and faster aspects
get transferred to? If you do not want the users to pay the costs, who do you think should pay
for the cheaper and faster transactions?

The Bitcoin network is more expense than average payment platforms because the expenses
are not subsidized by governments or banks, but is fully maintained by the users and the
network itself. It was designed like this so that there would be no middlemen or controls.  
In theory, every time a user performs a transaction, the expenses/cost of the network increases.

If you don't want users to pay the higher fees, who should be forced to pay them?

Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin to help the poor in 2nd and 3rd world nations.
He created Bitcoin as a reaction to how the current world financial system
takes wealth from the average 1st world people, without representation.
This "stolen wealth" is then distributed to systems that have been corrupted
and caused the original problems that needed the "bailing out". This enforces
and creates a precedent that systems can become "too big to fail".

Satoshi was outraged by that economic belief and understood where it will
lead. It leads to a fully finalized ponzi credit system, where personal savings
is impossible to maintain, and the average person is forced to take on more
and more personal debt, just to buy food and pay for housing. This creates
a world of debt slaves. To counter balance this, the experiment was enacted.
Bitcoin is not a simple currency, it is a deflationary/disinflationary asset.
The purpose of this design type was to not destroy the current world system
or supplant it, but to bring it back into reform to complement the credit.

Only by helping ourselves and forming better financial systems are we than
able to reach out and help the poor. It is like being on a airplane and learning
the basic steps from the flight attendant, in the event of a depressurization.
First, you place the oxygen mask on yourself and then help the person/child
next to you. This ensures that both humans have the procedure to follow, that
best ensures the potential for both to survive.

We can not help the 2nd and 3rd world until we have made a more balanced
Bitcoin network that will not need to rely upon centralized legally regulated
systems such as corporate data centers or government licensed miners. The
Poor will not prosper within a totalitarian centralized Bitcoin, in fact, they will
be controlled and subjugated worse than what they currently exist under.

Thus, on loading the poor from 2nd and 3rd world countries at this point in
Bitcoin's lifespan is immoral and malicious. Lets not try to hurt the poor more,
so that your profits become slightly bigger with dreams that you are freeing
them. In actuality, you are using them and their economic positions as an
emotional argument to centralize the blockchain ledger to a point of failure.

Leave the poor of those nations out of the blocksize/centralization debate.
The truth is, Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin for the 2nd and 3rd world.
It can become that, it could help them one day, but not in this way.
Lots of work still needs to be done before that point. If bitcoin fails soon,
the only people harmed are those of the 1st world, who have the ability
and society to recover from it. On the other hand, if that occurred with the
poor in 2nd and especially 3rd worlds, it could be a death sentence for
them and their families.

We should help free the poor only when we have truly freed ourselves first.
The longer Bitcoin survives in a balanced way, the more we will actually help
them. So, high fees are a current problem for mass adoption, but the true
question should be: "How much are you willing to pay for unregulated
decentralized financial freedom?". If you will only pay a very cheap price,
then your freedom will be equally as cheap.

Majority of that user's statements are fluff that doesn't actually explain how the
system works. Most statements are obfuscating or are plainly saying nothing.

To answer since I assume BTCWoker will never actually answer your question directly,
it can not secure your transaction example. That is impossible and like saying "When I
exchange my car for concert tickets on Craigslist, how does Craigslist secure that?". The
answer is that it does not. A blockchain used for documents or property is not secure like
the Bitcoin network and any belief or assurity of security comes from guarantees of a third
party.

In the most simple terms, the only reasons why bitcoin tokens are secured through the
blockchain is because they are actually the same entity. For a blockchain to secure
documents or property in the same manner, that document or property needs to be
represented as a ledger correspondent that is not a monetized token. Since the answer
for a new ledger correspondent has not been envisioned or created yet, blockchains can
not be used for anything other than currencies (, in a novel purposeful manner).

Of course, you can use a "blockchain" for anything, but that doesn't mean it will work the
same way or with equal security as the Bitcoin blockchain. All improperly used blockchains
relies third party intervention. The blockchain was originally designed to circumvent this.

The "blockchain" only works because it is 1 part of a 3 part system. Without the other two
systems, the blockchain serves no higher purpose. The blockchain is more than a ledger.

Your brain works so badly it is really quite sad.
I never blamed you or attacked you here.
I only warned you to really worry about those that you think are allies.
That is all. Pretty simple. I guess too simple for some people.



That is a request, not a prediction.


You are correct. No one, to my knowledge, has published a report analyzing any block data.
So my belief and prediction that it would be performed was wrong.


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I still stand by that.
Are you saying people do not have a right to different opinions?


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I still stand by that.
That comment is based on the theory that he was using covert ASICBoost.
Again, are you saying people do not have a right to different interpretation of events?


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I still stand by that.
That comment is based on the theory that he would make more money
from covert ASICBoost, than a simple 2MB blocksize bump.  
Again, are you saying people do not have a right to opinions?


That is not a prediction, that is a personal opinion and I think most people in the
community agree that the Covert and Overt ASICBoost issue is real. Its
existence and possibility is a threat to the Mining Nash Equilibrium.

And again, are you saying people do not have a right to opinions?



1. Purportedly Barry Silbert pushed for it, but Jihan did participate in the agreement.
So if SegWit is activated and prevents covert ASICBoost from being performed in the future,
then you are correct. Until that point, it is still unknown.
[YET TO BE DETERMINED]

2. Yes, I admit (that I am currently aware of) there has been no published report on the
data of blocks to determine if Covert ASICBoost was being performed on the network.
See, I can admit when I was wrong in situations where I was indeed incorrect. Otherwise,
most of your statements that I am lying or blaming others is mostly incorrect. In those
circumstances, you are using improper terminology and phraseology in order to attribute
things that did not actually occur. Personal opinions and beliefs can not be lies.
[MY PREDICTION WAS WRONG]

3. First, he only published that 19 days or so ago, and our conversation was based upon
the data that existed at the time, over 2 months ago. Second, because he posted his
"scaling roadmap" does not guarantee he will follow it. If he does follow it in the future,
then good on him. But otherwise, it has yet to be determined. So, you can not use that
as evidence that he WILL DO IT, because it could be deception or just changed later
because something better could arise. Only when he does it am I proven incorrect.
Only then my original belief then becomes wrong. Then I will admit being wrong.
[YET TO BE DETERMINED]

4. Yes, I was aware of that and commented on that in our thread, if you look.
The issue here is that if he did enact it, then I was wrong. Currently, there has been no
kill code written and placed into any future code proposals (that I am aware of). So the
issue here is that you take people at their word, and I do not. There is a saying, "Put
your money where your mouth is", meaning if you say you will do it, then do it and prove
it. That is all I am saying. If Jihan is willing to brake the ASICBoost potential in his chips,
then I am very delighted he said that, but will be extremely thrilled and happy when he
actually does it. When he actually does it, I will admit to being wrong.
[YET TO BE DETERMINED]

5. Again, your evidence is recent and my belief was based upon data that existed at the
time. You do not understand what time is it seems. You seem to live in a world where people
do not have the ability to change their minds or opinions about things after more data is
available. Many of your complaints against me is because you require a strict adherence to
opinions. In your world, if I was proven to be incorrect at some point, I should perform
seppuku or the like. This is not how normal people conduct discussions or arguments.  

The signing of the NY Barry Silbert Agreement does not prove that all miners what bigger
blocks, it only proves that they currently are fine with 2MB block size now. If that agreement
had all miners agreeing to implementing an Emergent Block Size Mechanism, I would then
agree with you and admit that I was wrong in my opinion. Otherwise, you are using the
same word games to order to portray me as being incorrect. The reality is that your
insistence and trying to attack me is because this whole issue is either tied to a liability
you may have or just due to your own ego. Also, you took my quote out of context in
which it occurred. If you look at the paragraph you selected from, you will see it is in
regards to the old soft cap on the blocksize, not blocksize in general. Of course Jihan
presumably would love to go to 20MB tomorrow, but that doesn't mean the smallest
mining farm/pool would want that as well. 
[BIG BLOCKS IS NOT 2MB BLOCKS, SO YET TO BE DETERMINED]

6. That does not mean ASICBoost was a fabricated distraction. Because the average
person is easily distracted and is incapable of understanding larger complex issues, does
not mean the original issue (Covert ASICBoost) was not worthy of discussion.

Antbleed was a serious issue from a security point of view which had the capability of
a serious attack vector on Bitmain chips, whether in their control or the control of
customers who bought and use them in their personal location. Either way, each issue
is serious and in my opinion, ASICBoost is more serious since it's consequences are not
temporary but potentially till the end of the network. Antbleed would have been a one
time attack. ASICBoost is a continuous ongoing PoW attack vector type, IMO.
[PEOPLE DISTRACTED DOES NOT EQUAL FABRICATION]


So once again, your attacks against me are not that great. They are mostly word games
and complaints of my phraseology. Most of the time, my opinions are still correct
since they have not been disproven yet. When Jihan/Bitmain performs the action themselves,
then I have been proven wrong. Jihan or miners claiming he/they are going to do something,
does not guarantee that it will occur. If the world truly worked that way, humans would
not need Court systems. Everything would be rainbows and butterflies. Hey, I get it,
maybe you live in rainbow land with gnomes and candy cane bridges. That must be it then.




In Bitcoin, it is everyone's fault. If we do or do not take an action, it only is because
WE did or did not do it. That is what Satoshi devised. That is what Consensus is.
So, you obviously do not understand Consensus or what I am talking about.

Unfortunately for you, it seems every-single-word-needs-to-be-spelled-out-for-you-since
-you-can-not-put-different-ideas-together-to-understand-issues-unless-someone-specifically-
points-the-direction-for-you-and-then-hand-holds-the-baby-so-it-doesn't-get-confused-and-
start-having-a-temper-tantrum. Also-every-little-tittle-better-be-correct-since-if-you-are-not-
specific-in-all-ways-baby-gets-confused-and-needs-to-lash-out. Go-drink-your-bottle-baby.

The real truth is that you are a pretty base simpleton. Your arguments against me are
not very good. I am always willing to be proven incorrect, because then there is actual
enjoyment and advancement in the discussion and life, but with you it is opposite.

The only thing I was incorrect about was that no one published a report on the past block
data within the time frame I assumed. I admit I got that wrong, but all else you claim is
garbage. Otherwise you argument is not very interesting and extremely emotional.





Oh, you weren't threatened but teaching a lesson then?
Here is the lesson, stop wasting your time, because your class room is empty and
your curriculum is crap. It is interesting that you have numbered the links to my
past writing above, as if you have been working on this for a long time. ZZZzzz...



**AgentofCoin bows to the non-existent audience**

That doesn't prove he had knowledge. You are assuming this.

When I used the term "impossible" it was possibly an incorrect term.
I have to go back and read all our discussions, but holding my whole argument to
a minor technicality is children's games. I was making a larger argument about motives
and not minor due diligence itself. I guess that is lost to you now as it was during our
original discussion. You do not know what real lies are, it seems.





Well didn't I concede to that part? Can you cite where I denied that part?
Or course I reserve the right to read over our old discussion and look into everything
again, but my recollection was that I agreed with you and this particular timeline you
created, but as I stated every time, it does not actually prove anything. In a court of law,
the judge would laugh at you since you are jumping to conclusions. The assumption is that
Bitmain DID DO due diligence before signing the HK agreement. But that is an assumption
and not a fact. You asserted it was a fact, and thus our original disagreement. You only
proved that there was a decent timespan for Bitmain to perform proper due diligence,
that is all you have done here. Anything more is speculation.

My main argument was not based in Bitmain's due diligence alone. As you will recall,
I even came up with a conspiracy theory as to a possible answer that fits pieces that are
still unknown. It was a theory only proposed and created by accepting your due diligence
timeline as true, yet you are not providing that evidence to our non-existant audience.

You are lying by omission.  




You don't understand discussions and argument then.
Everything I said in the following, if that is true (since I need to read it all over again) is still valid.
You proving that Bitmain had time for due diligence, does not prove it was performed.

(BANG - And at that moment of typing, AgentofCoin figured out what was occurring and why this
person was attacking him. It has nothing to do with the actual argument and had to do with
what this argument type actually represents in another place.)




Lawyers.




No one should listen to me, since I clearly don't know what I am talking about.
Everyone should pretend I was never here and go on with their business.

Shoo shoo baby.

If you think my statements are shameless and arrogant, you are blind of the wolves in
sheep's clothing that exist in your camp who are that. Your "big blocker" tribe has been
infiltrated by people who are the definition of the term you are using against me. Those
people discredit your "big blocker" positions and will harm your ultimate goal more than
any of my opinions can ever do.




No, if anyone takes the time to read our whole discussion, I never revise my original belief.
As I stated throughout the discussion prior:

(1) Bitman/Antpool signing the HK agreement does not prove any innocence on their part.
Agreements can be signed in bad faith and that is only determined later in the future.
Your argument was contingent that Bitmain signed in good faith, but that is an unknown.
We can not assume that, because that is an assumption. So it is irrelevant.
As I stated and you quoted earlier: "Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything
of any value in relation to this current ASICBoost issue.". That is true in my argument context.

(2) If Bitmain/Antpool did sign in the HK agreement in good faith, were they willing to "give
up" or "destroy" the investment they made into their chips that allow the possibility of using
ASICBoost? Do you contend that they were going to willingly "brick" that aspect of the chips
for the benefit of the Bitcoin network and its future?

(3) After ASICBoost being on Bitmain/Antpool chips was revealed to exist and could in
theory be performed in a covert manner, if QUESTION 2 was ANSWERED as YES, why did
Bitmain make a public statement saying that ASICBoost should not be rendered obsolete
and that all miners should be able to use ASICBoost and stated they did not wish to harm
the patent holders? That statement would contradict that they would originally willing to
"give up" on ASICBoost when they signed the HK agreement.

(4) So, back to the original argument, Why did Bitmain signed the HK agreement willingly
and with full knowledge that they would be voluntarily breaking their ASICBoosting potential?
My original belief was that they were oblivious that it would break there chips when they signed.
You disagreed with that and then never explained any rational ever again in multitudes of pages.
From that point on, all you did was call me names and attacked my character, as you have
continued to do so now. That is sign of a weak person and argument.

So here we are again. Back to my simple premise:

Will you entertain any theory or elaboration this time?
Or will you keep calling me names?




Yes forum members, read my words and past posts carefully.
Watch me lie to you all, and myself.

Watch how I have tried my best, yet there are times where I am not knowledgeable.
Watch how I wish the network to survive hundreds of years from now in an untrusted way.
Watch how I attempt to argue for beliefs against people I perceive as being malicious.
Watch how I attempt to argue so that decentralization and unregulation will still exist.
Watch how I want scaling to be performed on-chain when we are really ready for it.
Watch how I only show loyalties to the Protocol and Community Consensus.



And I still believe it. If you think I speak lies, that so be it.
My beliefs are not fully my own, there are many who think as I do.
I am one of many. We are Satoshi now.