bitcoin cash IS the same cartel as bitcoin core. follow the money..(DCG.CO)
   part 2 of the drama is no one should own "bitcoin" but by playing that KardashianB says they are 'it'..
   and then kardashianA pretends theres going   to be expensive court cases to ensure kardashianA holds the "it" title.
   end result A then owns something that was prviously unowned.
   same thing with craig wright. no one owns the 2009 'satoshi' stash.. craig gts friends relative to drum up drama. (neither have privkeys or 2009 involvement)
   craig then pretends lots of expensive court cases.
   end result craig hopes the court cases/social drama alone wins him title of satoshi and ownr of coins.. even with no PROOF no  signature no privkeys

the 3 card trick is to give the illusion of free choice.
BLOQ's segwit2x was just a ruse to get segwitx1 active.
cash was a way to get core opposers off the core network
end result core get what they want even though they only had 35% segwitx1 support

but your last sentance i agree. we should allow alternative clients on the same network to coexist in peace and each client could should have its own 'BIP' system where its not sheeping core . but letting the community choose.

emphasis. CORE should not shepherd the rules.

the real thing i find funny is cores flip floppyness
originally, consensus/compromised to yes segwit 2x.. next luke JR. "i have no say in core so i cant agree to anything.. next luke orchestrates MANDATORY UASF(technically UAHF)
the only 'clients' that are not REKT/told to F**K off are those in the pockets of DCG.CO

satoshis concensus algorythm (worth you rsearching) allows for peaceful co-existance. but by REKTing teams away and mandating pools follow rule X bypasses consensus. and leads to no REAL free choice.

you mean the 2 year social drama mess
or
you mean the 2 year protocol stagnation while core messed around and flipped flopped back and forth with the notion of segwit2x but ultimately core killed off 2x and now everyone is stuck with 1x

imagine 2015
other teams like xt/classic/unlimited they had thier own proposals. and they had no heavy mandatory deadlines of threats.
when something didnt get great % they went back and tried something else.

now if the core shill drama wasnt around to REKT/('f**k off the network') and instead it was just left as open choice then the teams would see after a few months of only getting 35%-50% they should have gone back to the drawing board and make something the community did want. (which came as a segwit2x in december 2015(yes core would have got segwit sooner if they just stuck with the 2x))
but then early 2016 core said no..

imagine november 2016
core wanted segwit 1x. but wanted it by christmas. .. christmas: 25% .. core didnt go back to the drawing book. they plodded on. then they started their REKT campaign.. and then got the partners(bloq) to pretend there was a segwit2x back on the table as a option. but as soon as the segwit element was activated. the 2x element died out and was told was a attack, and needed REKTing

now imagine if core didnt do all the 3 card trick REKTing. and instead actually did release a segwit2x.. because even as far back as 2015 thats what the community wanted/agreed/compromised to. we would have had segwit2x in 2016 without a mandatory deadline, without 2 years of drama and without the state where if the network wanted another limit increase to 2mb(legacy)8mb(SW) it would not involve a 2 year fight.
summary
core could and should have worked with the commnity and settled with the communities consensus compromise agreed in late 2015 as it would have actually got their commercial tool (sgwit) activated sooner and without headaches.

and other node brands would still be alive on the mainnet instead of being REKT off to altcoins

the DATA is distributed.
the nodes are distributed.
the rules/protocol is centralised.

do you know why satoshi disapeared in 2010.
many people had their own node and were making their own tweaks. satoshi was working from a repo that was not github. but when people started asking satoshi what roadmap satoshi should choose, he didnt want the pressure of deciding and didnt want to have to co-ordinate /review everyones own tweaks to make sure they all complied.
it was then in 2013 that things really centralised. where people instead of taking some bas line code and then making their own tweaks started to be told to only trust a central REPO and to follow certain guidelines and moderation process of a certain repo if they wanted a chance of getting a feature added to the network.

example 1. everyone follows the same rules.
example 2. who's rules. .. CORES ROADMAP
as i rambled on before if those nodes had lets say a diversity of 10+ different FULL NODE implementations where the other 9 didnt use BIPs(bitcoin cores proposal gateway) but had their own proposal gateways. then the rules proposal process would be decentralised. because consensus would choose which rule activates. not developers
 that way its not a cores way or stagnate. (or more precisely stagnate because of cores way) where there was actual onchain free choice of options a,b,c,d,e,f. (instead of choose Core or F**K off the network(ill let you choose if **= OR or UC))
then the rules/protocol would be decentralised.
but august 207 proved that cores paid devs have control and even faked choice with their 3 card trick and to have a consensus bypassing mandatory upgrade that was a cor roadmap result. where opposition were literally threatened off the network if opposing it.

its not a case of numbers

its a case of diversity.
meaning there could be 10 nodes or 10,000 nodes.

but if all the 10,000 nodes are run by people close to a corporation thats funded the peopls employers/friends. lets call this corporation DCG.co and lets call all the employers of businesses this list
https://dcg.co/portfolio/

and all the friends that would always download the software of thier friends and employers without caring about the rules change... then its not really decentralised.... its just distributed

what would be more decentralised is have MANY FULL NODE implementations released by many different teams. and all teams have their own proposals lists. and the only time bitcoins mainnet upgrades is when there is ACTUAL consensus. by everyone finding a common ground and each finding a contribution/consideration/compromise that the whole community can agree on gets the best for everyone.
without any mandatory bilateral splits based on the cries of thos who only got 35% not wanting try try something different or come back to a cnsensus compromise

once you learn the difference between dcentralised and distributed you would understand my points
once you understand how true consensus works ou would understand my points

firstly
anything is a currency. even stocks, shares, bonds. its then importand to define what CLASS of currency it is
majority of countries are correct that it is an ASSET class currency
it is not a commodity. nor a legal tender fiat.

secondly stop calling all these things a DUMP.
prices move up and down. accept it. and especially accept that you should never stand at the high and look down. always stand at the bottom and look up.. looking bottom up will save your sanity and will adjust your thinking to be more rational.

thirdly
its the wrong tim of year for thinking of taxes and many of those who are big enough to be whales and move a price considerably by themselves already know how to manage taxes without actually having to sell out.
think about it rationally . lets say USA.. if americans HAD TO cash out everything on tax day. then you would see every year on tax day the NYSE drop to zero because everyone has to cash out.
so people dont logically have to cash out. and so that busts the myth of tax being the reason.

fourthly
its more about the cost of obtaining it (mining costs) that are at play right now. the price is bordering the cost of obtaining it and the mining pools are reacting. one day 52exa the next 38exa meaning there is a cost swing of between $5k-$7k as the bottom line value (refuse to sell below support lines) so expect it to shift by $2k within a few days.. just learn to stand at the bottom and buy near the lows of average $6200 and sell for a few percent higher. stop getting emotional hoping for a $20k jump..  that $20k jump was never a sustainable point of value. it was a speculatd hype bubble. we may see $20k spike occur again medium term but based on value matrics it will be a whil before $20k is a sustainable bottom line value point.

dont stand at $20k peak looking down. it was never gonna last long at this time.
just enjoy the swings of prices as smaller percentages grab small percentages and repeat repeat rpeat. its less risky and will ultimately yield you mor then just waitin for a $20k ATH again

always falling down?

2016 didnt fall below $600
2017 didnt fall below $900
2018 didnt fall below $5000

stop living in clouds looking down. stand at ground level of $5k and look UP
treat $5k as your baseline and when prices rise by 1-5% take your profits..
whe the price corrects back down or you see a chance to get another 1-5% take it again.

repeat repeat repeat

day traders are actually IN..  holders are holders because they are holders. they are never 'in' by increasing their holdings. never out losing their holdings.
but day traders see the lows not as emotional times to cry, but as great buying oppertunities. to then sell at 1-5% later

if you going to hold out aind wait for your $5k btc to turn into $10k. then keep waiting.
but day traders would prefer to turn their $5k into $5050-$5250
then the next day repeat it and turn that sum into $5100-$2500
and within months get the $10k without waiting,without emotional crying. and without large risky waiting for 10-100%

EG if you know the price has reached $8k a few times this year. then chances are it will go up again. but dont bank on the $8k.
look at todays prices look at them in comparison to the rest of the year. the low of ~$5800 means that todays $6100 is pretty near the low. so great value. so set urself a goal for 1-5% (70-300) above the price now as your sell point. and buy some now to sl at the sell point you think can happen within a day or 2. (by looking at daily spread changes for last few months) and just put some money into it.
again dont be aining to wait for $8k just go for small percentages and flip flip flip

many day traders do it smart. they dont throw in their whole hoard into  price and wait for 100%. they break it up into lots of smaller amounts and guage when to place each order. but they only place orders when the price is on the dip/discount/low. they dont throw it all in because even if they know the price should hit within hours to days. they may miss out on shorter term further discounts while they wait. so they juggle multiple order lines of multipl prices and rpeat repeat repeat

and when they sell they can choose if they are fiat lovers or BTC lover. for instance
a BTC lover when setting a 1% profit sell point. would keep the 0.01btc as btc and sell the rest. thus returning the same fiat input but using fiat as their btc accumilator
a fiat lover would sell all the btc to have 1% more fiat. and just use the btc as their fiat accumilator

at the end of the day day traders dont care what the actual price is.. they just see spreads of 1-5% each day or week to make their 1-5%. to them it doesnt matter if the price is $2k, $5k, $20k. .. as long as they can see it has correctd to be 1-5%  closwer to the low. they can see a healthy chance it will go up 1-5% easily.

the argument to go in the direction of LN was because innovating bitcoin blockchain will cause centralisation.. but.. LN WILL cause centralisation.
as you said. ud have your phones app make channels with payment gatways that will monitor your channels and be hubs to the main merchants.

on bitcoins onchain you can simply turn your phone on sign a tx with your privkey and send it to whomever whenever without other peoples consent.. thats the whole point of cryptocurrency as oppose to fiat

in LN. you cannot just turn your device on push a paymnt out and turn device off in LN in LNs old 2016 concept.

you have to have pre set up channels that for the next 2 months will hve a good high chance of being online for 2 months to the services (starbucks/taxi) you want. and you have to fund those channels and lock those funds to those channel for them 2 months.

EG imagine you think you will spend $3 a day for 2 months on coffee. and $20 a day on taxi
(total funds locked for 2 months. c:$180 t:$1200)

now imagine you only have 2 channels. one to a hub that manages starbucks and another that manages taxi

starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$0 - $180] you [1200-0] bitpay [a -b] taxi

so you take a taxi into town
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$0 - $180] you [1190-10] bitpay [a-10 -b+10] taxi

so you buy a coffee
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [1190-10] bitpay [a-10 -b+10] taxi

so do whatever else during the day and then take taxi home
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [1180-20] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

lets imagine bitpay went offline
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you

you now only have $177 available. you can hope that coinbase has a route to taxi via other means.. but your still stuck with only playing with $177
your $1180 is still locked for 59 days(plus 8hours-5business day maturity revoke period).

...
now here is the 2018 concept involving factories
lets reset the funds.. but use the more centralised 2018 concept
you know your going to spend $1380 for coffee and taxi for the next 60 days
so you onchain your funds into a Barry silbert DCG.co factory. knowing their subsiduaries are coinbase and bitpay
so you fund DCG.co factory and request the factory route to coinbase and bitpay to pay you the amounts
                                 [$0-$180] DCG.co [$1200-0]
                              /                                          \
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [not open] you [not open] bitpay [a -b] taxi

                                [$180-$0] DCG.co [$0-$1200]
                              /                                          \
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$180 -$0] you [$0-$1200] bitpay [a -b] taxi

                                [$180-$0] DCG.co [$0-$1200]
                              /                                          \
starbucks [x - y] coinbase [$0 -$180] you [$1200-$0] bitpay [a -b] taxi

so now you are at the state before buying your first taxi into town to buy first coffee.. so now you can pretend DCG.co doesnt exist
now if bitpay went offline. because the channel setup is not a onchain locked funds of $1180 after first days travel. you can close the channel and then those funds dont go back to you onchain. they go back to the factory where you request the factory funds coinbase and cinbase funds you

                                        [$180-$0] DCG.co [$1180-$20]  - (bitpay keps the $20)
                                       /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

                                        [$180-$1180] DCG.co [$0-$20]
                                       /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $177] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

                                             [$1360-$0] DCG.co [$0-$20]
                                          /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$1183 - $177] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

                                             [$1360-$0] DCG.co [$0-$20]
                                          /                                          \
starbucks [x+$3 - y-$3] coinbase [$3 - $1357] you [not open] bitpay [a-20 -b+20] taxi

...
all of which is so you have 'convenience' ... but. your $1380 is locked into DCG.co for 2 months. and have to rely on dcg, coinbase and bitpay to stay online and sign EVERY payment you want to send

EVERY PAYMENT
which is no better than the fiat banking system.
hubs become the 'bank branches' factories become the bank HQ
and you then become reliant on other parties having to authorise movements of funds you THOUGHT you had full control of bt no longer do in LN

bitcoin and crypto currency was invented to avoid using services that require authorisation by other parties.
bitcoins onchain innovation has been stifled and stagnated to suggest the future is to go back to the old way things worked. purely for "convenience"

alot of people foolishly and stupidly stand at the peak of $19,500 and look down.
yet not even 1% of the community got to see-use-benefit from the ATH because it was an unsustatinable fluke.

what people need to do is not sit in the clouds and look down but stand at ground level and look up.

after doing some maths th long way round and then trying to look for a way to simplify it.. imagine this.
take the network hashrate (in exa). and multiply it by 135 and you will start to see the ground level where people will refuse to sell below

EG
take the highest hashrate this month. 52exa = $7020
on that day the price was over 7020

the next day 39exa=$5265 on that day the price was in the high $6k
latest hashrate 42exa= $5670 which we are seing today we are still in the $6k range

so instead of standing in the clouds. stand at ground level. knowing no one is stupid to sell below the cost of obtaining bitcoin and so if a mining pools costs are 135* their hashrate thats their bottom line.

then you will start to see where prices are near that point. and you can class that as a low price and good oppertunity to buy. and if the price is way way way above that bottom line. then it is a sign of speculative hype/emotion/ empty reason. thats not sustainable and many people will want to sell so expect those high prices not to sustain for long (EG dcembers temporary fluke bubble price of $19.5k which burst and settled back down nearer to real value)

..
the 135 multiple came from looking at the latest ASIC equipment cost and electric per btc and other factors.
back in 2017 asics were not $850 but nearer $2k which is where the matrix was over 200. bet right now this quarter while asics and costs are where they are 135 is a good ground level multiple without having to go the long way round working out costs of producing a btc

reading the article here is my opinion.
the dude wants to introduce a "carbon emmisions per gigahash" (lets call it CEPGH)

well ASICS are the most environmentally friendly method per gigahash. all the CEPGH will achieve is ban altcoins that CPU/GPU mine because their CEPGH ratio is far worse.
its basically a call to rule out CPU/GPU mining which is more Carbon Emmissions per Gigahash
so i dont see it as an article against bitcoin. i see it more as a argument against other coins that are PoW based but dont want asics.

..

what i do find funny though is has anyone calculated the CEPYTKV.. Carbon Emissions Per You Tube Kitten video
what if i told you there were  
under 100million kitten videos of 4-20 minutes long
under 600k bitcoin blocks of 4-20 minutes long

meaning there are atleast 100x more kitten videos than bitcoin blocks

now lets take the bitcoin hashrate
50,000,000terrahash= 3.5million asic miners

lets say an average pc uses 450watts. an average asic uses 1.3kw ... an asic is the power of 3 PC's
screw it lets round up some more. that means that if a 10 minute kitten video has 10mill views or more. it has a more negative ecological impact than mining a bitcoin block

now remember there are 100x more video's than blocks. so just the category "kitten" on just the website youtube is wasting more electric per view than bitcoin does

...
as for my first thought
a 450w PC doing CPU mining.. scrw it lets say 3 PC's to stay on the same power usage ratio. 3 PC's CPU mining do not even do a gigahash/s
a 650w PC doing GPU mining.. screw it lets say 2 PC's to stay on the same power usage ratio. 2 PC's GPU mining do not even do a terrahash/s

an asic does ~14 terrahash/s. which as my first thought concluded makes bitcoin mining more efficient than any other altcoin that PoW's  based on the articles proposed CEPGH

devs are now seeing the pitfalls. flaws and broken promises.

to receive funds people need to keep their channel online. this has come to a debate about using servers and lightwallets so people can use their phones as the payment method without needing to carry a laptop/desktop around to buy coffee on a full node. and to allow the server to manage the channel while people sleep or have their phone switched off/on charge/airplane mode/out of signal range
summary of devs: it will be more centralised than previously promised, but convenience comes at a cost

because transactions are not relayed/audited/verified by the community. and only the counterparty(s) in the channel check and sign. there are ways for malicious tweaking to occur. and unless people are checking the raw tx data of what they are contracting to. its much like signing a contract without reading the small print. thus third parties will play a bigger part in it and also KYC.
summary of devs: by avoiding blockchain there is no community consensus. thus a KYC system may need to be added for personal due diligence and to help avoid phishing and other risks of party to party malicious acts

with network stats showing that if everyone just has 2 channels open (one inbound one outbound) where the network looks like a long snake of a large single route. if the head of the snake wants to make a payment to the tail. in a 1000 node network is 1000 agreements and micro fee's to get the payment through which if someone at the stomach goes off line everyone is effected. so a average 2 channel per node is dangerous and expensive for all involved.
the average for 100 nodes is 4 channels which equates to upto 20 agreements/microfee's but offers more than one route
the average for 1000 nodes should be more around the 14 channel aim(of 3-4 hops) to keep the agreements/microfee's below 64 'hops'(2-4 channels)
summary of devs: the more people that join. the more hops are needed or the more channels per node are needed. so the hop model doesnt work without central hubs of multiple channels or each node having multiple channels to be well connected. we see things moving more towards the central hub manager model as it is more convenient than users setting up multiple channels

stats already show that although the 'contracts' are set for 2 months+ average, people will not keep their devices on 24hours/71days.
yes out of LN's 3k nodes most do. but these are majority the devs/merchants. not regular home users
EG beta game testers spend days/weeks jumping at the same wall, testing every vector. but regular users spend seconds jumping at a wall and only a couple hours before getting bored
as you can see by bitcoins mainnet.
with millions of bitcoin users there are only a dozen thousand nodes on all the time most of which are merchants/devs. but the mass majority do not stay on for months on end(under 1%)
this can cause issues. especially around node update releases where it ends up that(for full nodes) whole blockchains need to be re synced/indexed offering a malicious timed attack for some users to exploit while their counterparty is asleep. on vacation, at work or re-indexing their mainnet node due to an update, thus unable to monitor broadcasts.
summary of devs: requirement to extend the revocation period by days instead of hours or cencentrate on server management for convenience

some merchants will not want to have their internet connections occupied by 8000-1million channels direct with their customers nodes. and having to secure the connection/monitor such amount of channels day and night. so they will use third party node services to become hubs around the merchant where the hub takes all the strain and the merchant just has a couple 'trusted' service gateways it connects to.
summary of devs. like how cloudflare or bitpay take the brunt of customer demand to reduce risk of loss of funds or even DDoS the end merchant/site

there are many other risks/factors too(hyips/ponzis). although mainnet is a push network. thus those involved in HYIP/Ponzi schemes are themselves handing funds into these schemes(their own fault). but with LN's routing autopilot. hyip/ponzi's can loop random people in and extract funds out of people without them realising they have been looted via a ponzi just by the routing autopilot trick.

dont get me wrong. LN has got a niche market for a certain userbase. but it is not the solution for everyone.
where visa stats show visa is used under 90 times in 2 months per user.
having to set up 14+ channels (28 onchain transactions to open and close)  means people on average would only do 3 LN payments per onchain tx. but when the network surpasses just a few thousand nodes and more channels per node are required EG 28 channels(56 onchan tx) for 1-2 tx per channel
under 45 channels then its a 1:1 real life usage and normal people see no point in pre-planning 2 months of spending habits and setting up 45 channels when they can just send funds to the merchant onchain as and when they please at the same overall cost but without the pre planning.

lastly although LN is promised as the cheap solution. thats just the bait. come on how oftn do you see any service, whether it be train rail, bus, postage, theme park queue.. where a faster service is cheaper. we all know the market will flip where the fasters service will get expnsive de to convenience and the old slow confirmation onchain would then be still expensive but cheaper than LN, once the dynamics change due to real life consequences

donations, even if you ignore the currency type. is a flawed income generation model.

even these mainstream news sites try to avoid putting up a 'paywall' but then do a donate request. they dont get much and thats from a national fiat currency.
donations of bitcoin in the past were much higher. but that was in the time where people didnt think it would surpass $20. now people are afraid to donate and even afraid to spend bitcoin because they feel if they donate/buy coffee this year, they could have used that exact amount of satoshis to 'buy a lambo' in 2 years.

if people want income. there are many other better ways to get it

a few others have hinted it.. but not laid it out as bare as i will

stop giving a crap about market cap
i can make a coin with 21 trillion coins. sell just 1 coin for $5 and instantly have a market cap of $105 trillion
thus making it the top of 'coinmarketcap' and making bitcoin less than 1% in comparison... all for the price of $5

what actually should be done is take some FEATURES that the majority of crypto have. and give them a point system for how important they are.
and then show the points total for each coin.
then this actually might start directing bitcoin devs to see what direction the devs need to go towards to keep people excited by knowing what bitcoin lacks that other coins have..thus identifying what is needed to then earn bitcoin more feature points to stay ontop

bitcoin doesnt have an actual sidechain.

side chain = altcoin

basically you swap a bitcoin for a rootstock coin and then do some contract stuff on the rootstock chain and if certain conditions are met you get the bitcoin back.
the rootstock coin is NOT bitcoin. its a separate system that wants to peg their coin to bitcoin.

the contracts do not run on bitcoin. they run on the separate altcoin called rootstock

remmbering that applepay is not tendering Apple currency. but is tendering fiat. so users need to connect their fiat account to applepay
and merchants although they tender fiat. to accept applepay they need to be clients of applepay

so its not an automatic just walk in and everyone is happy. users need to set up their applepay accounts and merchants need to set up their accounts

so
lets pretend coinbase is applepay. (the gateway for the currency)
to avoid the need to use lengthy publickeys or lengthy LN URI's. hopes of having available LN channel routing, and/or avoid lengthy onchain confirm times.
user funds their coinbase account
a user just needs to know a ID of the merchant EG stabucks#12344#02/08/18
imagine both merchant and customer have a coinbase account and use a coinbase app
merchant sends the customer the merchants ID via NFC(rfid) and the users coinbase app does the rest where coinbase does the balance transfer instantly (they do offchain balance transfers) and informs the merchant that its done.

ofcourse convenience and speed comes at a cost of relying on services such as applepay or coinbase in this example. which is why its normally best to only put in $30 value to cover 'convenience' spending. into these managed systems. and keep your main hoards/ value/salary separate.

---

even LN's current design is not as good as what applepay/coinbase could offer.
but due to oncoming legislation about 'custodian wallets' whereby people could just send funds through balances held on exchanges/merchant tools.. the investors behind coinbase/bitpay and xapo. are scared to implement the scenario i shown above about coinbase transfering balances. as that would be a regulatory nightmare (but convenient for users and mrchants).. and that there is why LN is being created so that merchants can link to services like coinbase and to customers. in a way that regulators cant hold coinbase accountable as the 'balance sheet' coinbase hubs manage are not centralised to coinbase but distributed. thus allowing coinbase to make fee's without paying expensive licences.

emphasis LN wont be as promised or as convenient. but will stil be co-managed by third parties. to be able to offer something devs dont want to fix on the mainnet.

back to the topic question

the blockchain format is not compatible backwards.

old nodes are not just relaying blocks along with everyone else byte for byte the same. they are not even relaying transactions the same.. the old nodes have been re-jigged around the network topology where they are just the tails/border/outer nodes of a network. that require segwit nodes to bridge/filter them data.

lukeJR, sipa, gmaxwell said it themselves.

also to prove it
if there was a fault with segwit nodes and they had to back date/downgrade back to a pre-segwit node
guess what.. problems would arise.
as their would not be any segwit nodes to translate(filter-bridge) the blocks
if people then accidently sent out segwit transactions whereby the network defaultd to non-segwit.. those transactions could be manipulatd.
(this is why although they pretend it was all soft and backward. the devs didnt release the wallets for segwit until after the mandatory split)
P.S.. by bing madatory and being a rule change requiring acceptance or rejected off the network.. that is not a soft fork. its a hard fork

and again ill emphasis it was a segwit block format that occured first in the timeline to change the concensus rule and direction.. which triggerd the rejecting of blocks and throwing people off the network

blame the miners?

did you even wake up and look at the events of summer 2017
signal for segwit by august first or get your blocks rejected

lets word it differently..
open your legs in the next 10 seconds or get shot in the head..
is it then the womens fault for getting raped?

as for saying no one can orchestrate it.
lukeJR and samson mow USAF - lets call them the threateners
barry silbert (who pays Luke JR, samson mow, blockstream, bloq)
gangraped the women(network)
one part offering the rough painful option. another offering a slow consensual option. and a third offering a compromise if she doesnt scream she wont gt scrwed... well she got screwed.

it was all a three seashell/card trick game of fake choice.
i also found it funny that the propaganda machine was at such a level that they actually stopped reporting orphans
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=2years
check when they turned off the orphan checker to hide it  (hint 21st june)
then check your history of what happened
this is where by the pretense of offering a 2x version.. it falsy gave cores segwit % a jump from 35% to above 80%
kind of funny how fast 2x discussion dropped away as soon as 'segwit's bip91 got the lock it needed weeks later.  but then you look at who paid th 2x shell and you see the picture clearly

and lastly..

it was a bilateral split. the rules of segwit ARE DIFFERENT than the rules befor the mandatory split
its literally wrote in the blockchain at 478559

oh and bitcoin cashs version of different ruled blocks created a different block hours later.. meaning core rules changed first in the timeline. although it was same block numbers.
both core and cash had the same 478558
then core changed.
core even got to block 478601 (7:05pm uk time) before cash even made block 478559(7:12pm UK time)
yes core was pushing out segwit only accepted blocks for 42 blocks before cash..
(i told you weeks ago to check the blockchain before rebutting....)


maybe look at block data before defending certain people.
it is getting obvious you dont care for the network or the protocol changes or events. you just want to defend a particular team of people.

P.S jeff's 2x implementation was never sustainable, not due to bad coding. but due to it just being a ruse to coax miners into being raped under false consent.
jeff is another guy paid by barry silbert.
its all one big kardashian drama of pretend in-family fighting to get people to choose which family member they love the most. but in the end its all the same family and the drama would have played out in one pre-planned direction no matter what

atleast rmove your lips from a developers ass long enough to read some facts and even some blockchain data.. because you are starting to become obvious you care less for the network and only care for the desires of a few paid men

where is your maths.
where you getting 1.3billion.. where are you getting 0.8mil own bitcoin.

its 2% of american investors.
so 325mill population(america).. 54% are investors.. which is: 175mill american investors.
2% of that basd purely on that article results in 3.5 million americans have bitcoin

all depends on who was polled.
go to a fiat investment firm that legally can only invest in regulated FIAT investments. your guaranteed low results.

go to a place where its individuals doing penny stocks, shares, assets and commodies and other investments where they have more flexibility of choice and the poll would be different

its like going to a gay bar. 99% of people that drink beer are gay
go to an average bar.. 15% of people that drink ber are gay
go to a bar designated for racists and homophobes.. 0% of people that drink beer are gay

a better poll would be to find out how many americans are investors
gallop says 54% of americans invest(separate poll)

then work out how many americans own bitcoin
survey monkey says 5% of americans have bitcoin

making it over 9% of american investors have bitcoin

you forgot to add if an exchange only does say 200btc volume a day thats usually only 1btc in fee's. no VC is going to buy shares in the the ownership of an exchange that only makes 1btc a day. so some exchanges fake volumes, not to make a coin look good. but to grab some VC money

its also not just exchanges. its wallet custodians faking the 'new walet' per day stats to make it seem that its a good VC prospect for advertising income of a nice increasing customer views site

um. you might want to read it again. its from the prospective of the users.
the argument for not increasing the block size is that users computers wont be able to cope with processing and sending data out. becasue upload speeds are bad (they lost the download speed argumnt years ago, which is why they retracked and now have this 4mb weight(yet not allow it to be 4x capacity) .. (netflix argument)

read again. its not about just users VIEWING netflix. its users LIVESTREAMING. meaning their computer taking 32-64 HD webcam images a second,  and sending them out.

these days hundreds of millions of people can play a game on their computer. sending all the player position, angles facing. gun height direction and bullet timing OUT. while also talking to their friends on teamspeak or skype.(voice data OUT) while having a webcam on so they can overlay their facial reactions ontop the gameplay and have that sent OUT to livestream, twitch or youtube..

think about all the data being processed every second for all the vector positions of gaming. the overlaying of webcam footage and overlaying of groupcalls to a seamless constant stream of data to twitch. aswell as simultaniously sending out parts of that data as individual streams to skype to EA..

now go tell twitch that their service does not work because users cannot send out megabits/second for twitch to receive. oh wait, people can send out many mbyte/10min

1mbit/s = 1*60*10 /8 = 75mbyte/10min
.. i know i can feel you itching to press the reply button to rebut about developing countries being slow and also relaying out data to multiple node= multiplying the data amount. also many dveloping countries have nver been in the nod running requirment because their internet is cellular. which no matter what speed their internet is. core is not functional as a full node on a cellular (programming issue not speed issue) and also the tx fee surpassed 1c a tx. thus rulling out good utility for developing countries.

but if you take time to check the stats we are in the era of fibre and 5g cellular. not adsl copper wire and 2g cellular

global average
http://www.speedtest.net/global-index
46down 22 up
22mbit/s up = 22*60*10/8 = 1.6gbyte/10min .. or the average node with 8 connctions = 200mbyte per 10mins