having to lower my standards...

franky1

Weak

no

no

Better than nothin

Weak

acceptable

prefer

no

even though i reduced my standards.. its just the cludginess of the bips related to segwit.. the empty promises/ half gestures..
and still reliance of devs controlling when the next blocksize increase occurs (meaning endless debates lasting a couple years)


its like they offer you a spoon of sugar but then put a fly on top

Kleiman  was in and out of hospital many times .. including times where 'satoshi' was healthily writing code and posts online, thus cant be the same person.

kleiman was heavily interested in investigating and identifying people and was a government man.... 'satoshi' was interested in a non government non identity.. thus cant be the same person

the 'trust' kleiman set up for craig wright (the only 'claim' of linkage) was quickly debunked via proof that the trust only contained PUBLIC keys(anyone can copy) and was only (falsely)validated using a signature that is public knowledge(pre-existing) and part of the blockchain and nothing to do with 'millions of coins' but a transaction PUBLICLY visible in the blockchain that anyone can copy and paste.

in short the 'signature' amounts simply to someone doing a search for an existing signature and then claiming its proof of identity to millions of things that a certain identity might be linked to. to which if i done something similar, i could simply do

thank you google and 1 second of effort
i am bill gates i own everything from microsoft or medical cures



so can we drop the klieman/wright myth. as thats drama that got debunked 1-2 year ago

if the only requirement to being satoshi is having said signature
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=
we are all satoshi

this week has proved one thing

89% pool agreement flagging is possible

segwit alone only got 10% in the first week and stalled around the 34% average of 6 months

2mb and segwit getting 89% in a week just goes to show all the chest beating from a particular group refusing to code 2mb was just wasting time. if only they released a 2mbsegwit in summer 2016 alot of drama could have been avoided

theres many aspects to it.. theres many reasons for having a distributed decentralised network of nodes.
things like (using torrent as an analogy)  if your connected to 8 seeds and need to sync(your the leacher for now) and the seeds have 4 nodes of 485,000 blocks but another 4 nodes have 484000 blocks. your going to grab data from the 485,000 nodes as you define that as the most complete list.

however you find out that the 485,000 nodes are on the old rules you end up orphaning them blocks and banning the nodes.. leaving you only seeing the 4 nodes with a height of 484,000(new rules) as that becomes the new visible highest height (complete chain)

so its not the case of just relying on one source of data... nodes prefer to have multiple sources that way if one source is 'wrong' they can grab data elsewhere..

so its important there are multiple sources of data, and that the majority of those multiple sources have the same rules as you do..

thats why its best that there are more then just 70 nodes all run just by merchants. but there are 'backup's too. which helps put less strain on the merchant nodes needing to be seeds because people can grab data from other locations, should a merchant get shutdown or ddosed or just over strained by too many leachers trying to connect to merchant nodes.

..
once you grasp the need for the decentralisation of the data.. you then can move on and grasp why its best that those decentralised diverse brand nodes also agree to the same rules as a majority, to avoid orphan drama.

..
once you grasp that. you realise by having your node agreeing to the merchant rules you can spend with that merchant because they see your tx. also to flip the argument, if the merchant see's its only getting bad data and the majority of the community is agreeing to other rules.. the merchants would treat the most popular chain as the main chain. and the bad data least popular nodes as the alt.

thus its not a sheep follow merchants who follow pools.. its about symbiotic relationship of consensus of everyone finding something agreeable.
..
having grasped that..you can then move on and grasp that bitcoin is revolutionary because it doesnt rely on everyone just leaching off of one pool of data but each node validates independently which makes the network stronger and less vulnerable to central-point-of-attack vectors. it also allows sharing of data to not put a strain on a central point..
it also ensures no central point decides the direction..

..
things would /could go very wrong if everyone was a leacher to just lets say 70 nodes all colluding to a single cartel. and this is why consensus only moves the network forward when independant people agree that the new rules that are in benefit to the community.. by the community having nodes that have the most reliable chain that is acceptable to the majority.


signing a PDF is one thing.. changing a few bytes in a flag is one thing.
but in the end the nodes should only flag when they actually have the code to handle what they are flagging. otherwise its an empty gesture that falls flat on itself when 'activation' occurs.

EG lets say 80% want X and flag it,, but 75% actually are running A. X gets activated(false pretence). but then a clusterf**k of orphans because 75% are rejecting the activated rule. because they dont have the code to handle the new rule. they just waved a flag.

instead of just making a node and telling people the possibilities and then letting it wonder free in an open decentralised manner.. the ICO concept is very much different

unlike bitcoin, which never began as a ICO, nor organised by a 'company' who made promises(contracts) to hand X premined coins you customers Y over a term...

i see ICO's becoming regulated just like 'shares' are.

ICO's will be hit by bureaucracy of the 'founders' home country. all because of how organised and centralised the concept of ICO is.

that said. most ICO's are just crap coins, so treat them like penny share trading if your gonna risk it.
best advice is. only waste amounts you are willing to lose.

EG if you normally spend $20 on a evening take-out/fast food, which naturally/literally ends up in the toilet 6 hours later.. make urself a sandwich instead and use that $20 on an ICO.. that way you never 'lose' (british pun: never loo's)

segwit2x does have a codebase
https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/blob/segwit2x/src/consensus/consensus.h
segwit2x now has code for a 2mb base block
33    if (!BIP102active(nHeight, fSegwitSeasoned))
34        return MAX_LEGACY_BLOCK_SIZE;
35
36    return (2 * 1000 * 1000);
37    }
...

which activates 3 months for th 2x after segwit
13    static const unsigned int BIP102_FORK_BUFFER = (144 * 90);

..

but not really a Release Candidate so its highly possible the pools flagging for segwit2x are not running the codebase
so all the flag waving of blocks is still kind of 'sybil' (empty/fake gesturing). so things are still up in the air.


the hong kong/ late 2015 consensus round table meetings  funded and sponsored by barry silbert.. is the same 'agreement' as segwit2x
but atleast there is some code available.

now we just have to see if we can get nodes to download it (once its finalised and reviewed for RC) to then get a NODE consensus... for pools to have confidence that if they made such blocks.. the nodes wont still be running old code to reject blocks bigger than (1*1000*1000).

what people seem to forget is its not simply about waving a flag in a block.. its about consensus of nodes actually running code rules that allow bigger base blocks and consensus of pools creating bigger base blocks.

at this moment the empty sybil flag waving will just cause segwit to activate, but no guarantee of base blocks over (1*1000*1000) being accepted because from bitnodes stats, it shows no one is actually running the segwit2x (btc1) codebase to enforce it

p.s only reason i rant/repeat myself. is due to the biased censorship deleting my posts to hide the facts, so i end up having to repeat things just for the hope that some posts get missed out in the deletions so that they actually get read.. because alot of the facts just get deleted. i would repeat myself alot less in topics if it wasnt for moderation deletions

a reference client should not be decision making.. but having a client that allows adaptability, and includes things as default when a consensus is reached.. not the other way round.

many have tried to 'contribute' but found their commits declined because it does not follow the path agreed at the late 2015 BScartel meeting.

the only commits that usually get accepted by 'independents' are spell checks or minimal error correcting.

anything in regards to rule changes /upgrades, have to follow the BScartel decision

nope..
sorry but its devs that end up controlling things..

you only think pools have control because the DEVS programmed their implementation to avoid consensus and allow pools to be the vote.

however pools are limited by the rules laid out by the implementations .. these rules are programmed by the DEVs

..

in short.
imagine if pools with the heighest hash power all decided one day they would make blocks using sha-3

guess what happens.. the nodes reject the blocks
yep
even if pools had exahashes more than any opposition, the blocks they make would get rejected.

pools do not set the rules. devs do. and its the devs who have been trying hard to point the fingers at pools rather then themselves.

EG
luke JR programmed segwit to be pool initiated and it back fired, luke thought that h and his bscartel could easily buy the pools favour in the form of many all inclusive weekend parties.. but it didnt work

so then devs decided to make proposals of POW nuking, mandatory activations.. but then try to hid that they are involved.


..

in a better future.. what should happen is a 'reference' client has blocksize setting adjustable at runtime and the ability to download patches for bips.

then the network as a whole can just flag what is desired by showing what features/settings are enabled..without a 'reference' client steering in only one direction based on what the devs of that client think is best


EG
no more 'lets make a office word package that in 2000 only has embolden text, then later underline..
but instead a wordpad where you can have it all and choose what you prefer. and have the ability to download new font packs(smart contract script) without demanding of the main software supplier having to have it bundled in when they deem fit

you seem to forget the 2013 Berkeley->leveldb   event involving the issues with the locks. that caused alot of drama, including a period of time exchanges halted deposits/withdrawals to avoid issues until the drama was over.

there is no point pretending something is perfect utopia and preaching utopia to the already converted. what is best is to accept there have been issues and there are issues and to learn from them and to fix them.

EG
some state that core is perfect and has no issues.. if this were true there would be no need for segwit or schnorr or increasing blocksizes or other things.

good to see an implementation finally showing the main block size increase... and with a ~3 month from now activation.

seems i should keep my eye on updates daily, rather than sporadically(few times a month/when they announce RC versions)

im guessing things like this can change peoples opinions if all the other 'brands' followed suite with the same commits..
lets wait and see

........
i just wonder how many blocks are waving flags.. but not running the actual implementation that has the code. thus basically sybil flagging

im not being contradictory at all, i just see things layers/dimensions deeper than most

as always you think 'value' means price

but value is utility

anyone can have a coin with a large market cap
anyone can cause a swing in the price

but if you went to use bitcoin to buy something real.. and found out that the merchant tools (shopping cart) was using a different chain.. then your stuck with a coin that cant buy real things.

..
as for the exchanges, most exchanges will offer swaps between the different chains.. thats where exchanges get their profits. from people doing swaps

..

ok lets simplify it for many people
instead of thinking about price of bscoin(segwit) bitcoin(legacy/classic) bitmaincoin(bitmains alt) and the fight for price.

imagine coinbase, bitpay, purse, gyft and other real world purchase utility flipped to use litecoin for real world goods purchasing

now imagine the impact of merchant services deciding a certain coin for utility.. and let that play into your scenarios.. knowing it has nothing to do with which 'bitcoin' has biggest price..

once you do that and come to that realisation.. and ran a few cause/affect scenario's... simply replace the word litecoin for any of the bitcoin upcoming forks.. and realise the same applies. its not due to 'price' but due to utility and decisions of services

best thing is.. im guessing u do alot of sigcampaigns.. so instead of taking a daily /weekly withdrawal.. let your balance pile up and take a fortnightly/monthly withdrawal

(wording it in fiat terms to dismiss petty knitpick of random use of satoshi amounts which meanders away from the concept discussion)

EG if you make $1 a day stop asking for $1 a day and instead ask for $28 every 4 weeks

then when you get it ull have one unspend output of $28 instead of 28 outputs of $1..
to then use as a single input when you want to spend it

i have to agree with theymos

all the 'promises' of increase to a 2mb base block miss out on actually including code that actually includes a 2mb base block
thus all same half gestures/ empty promises since 2015

yet

EC is not a BU branded 'product'

BU brand call theirs 'Adjustable Block-size Cap' (ABC)

commonly people call EC 'dynamic blocksize' which again is not a BU product

seems by making EC a BU option. you will get people to basiedly not vote for EC it purely because YOU branded it as BU, knowing peopl will respond 'oh no i read on reddit that its bad bad bad'

other implementations totally unrelated to BU use EC

think of blockchain as the DNA of this whole new industry
crypto currency is a sub category/product of blockchain
emphasising on the 'currency' part.. this mean altcoins.. but even further into the sub category.. even if you want to do an altcoin/cryptocurrency project. it does not mean you are simply tied to only making the new altcoin..
you can make a business selling hardware wallets that communicate with the altcoin node. you can sell t-shirts and gear to advertise your altcoin you can sell specialised ASICS that mine whatever algo the altcoin uses..

there are many things you can do.

..
now going back up to the umbrella term blockchain.
a blockchain is not limited to 'coins' it can be used for DNS services, identity, product locating, system automation, smart contracts

there is a very very large multitude of industries that can be set up and do absolutely different things from each other and still be doing 'blockchain projects'


its a whole new industry division.
project managers, developers, consultants, conference organisers, PR, manufacturing, advertising, auditors, accounting, product testing, lots and lots of different roles can emerge from it all

real funny part is

all these bips pushing hard to "activate" segwit..

but no one will be able to actually make a segwit transaction when activated...
there will be delays and excuses of why people have to wait for blockstream to code a version which allows the segwit keypair wallet function on mainnet

so dont expect utopia on activation day.. plenty more drama after that of getting people to download yet another version after activation and then the cluster f**k of drama of getting people to move funds from legacy keypairs over to segwit keypairs

thats what matters most.. many people think its about price.. long term its about what bitpay / coinbase offer as the coin thats acceptable to their merchant tools/shopping cart API

as for the exchanges.. pretty much all the coins will be on all the exchanges

technically
the main bitcoin would grow..
this is because instead of selling the main bitcoin for dollars (usually causing price to go down)
people who dont wont the main bitcoin wont sell it for dollars.. instead they sell it on the splits orderbooks instead.
thus less tanking of the main orderbook<>usd... and instead more volume on the main<>splits orderbooks

but... speculation over-rules technicals
knowing how day-traders work
speculation will make people arbitrage between the splits and main trying hard to get the splits to have value by doing arbitraging.. so it can go any way, due to speculation. it all depends what the exchange owners and arbitraging traders want to play it