1. look at the unconfirmd spam
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year
june/july spike -hmm i wonder which team needed something to be implemented so needed to create drama that month.. oh blockstream(core) CSV
october -> spikes -hmm i wonder which team needed something to be implemented so needed to create drama that month.. oh blockstream(core) segwit

2. look at the code rules that allowed fee increases
hmm i wonder which team removed the fee priority - oh yea blockstream(core)
hmm i wonder which team removed reactive pricing when demand was low to replace it with average fee to keep prices up - oh yea blockstream(core)
hmm i wonder which teams says "just pay more" is best economics. rather then make code rules that actually work - oh yea blockstream(core)

3. dont blame "asians" when its the coders decisions at play

??anyone can contribute ??lol
what a laugh

anyone can put in a spell check edit (pull request) of a document and if seen as someone the maintainer likes, it gets added.
but as for trying to actually change to dynamics with core code of the actual code rules.. forget it

many have tried
and guess who is usually the main names that Nack (not acknowledge)

i feel hyena is more so asking to get rid of the blockstream puppetmasters. to actually have core become unbiased


if core was really "independent". then technically they would not be dependant on core and could help out with other implementations with out any repercussions or threats of being REKT by leaving core..

yet the history shows if you leave core your instantly REKT.

just look what your own words are saying .. core are a group of X but BU are Y.. if core are independent then why be so bold as to try tarnishing anything not core why not just say BU needs more devs and core devs are free to help out anyone or any brand with no arrogant insulting childish 'eww your leaving the cool kids and playing with the the small kids' name calling

3. i laugh when you try to pretend blockstream is "one company that has some devs involved with bitcoin"
but then when anyone talks about bitcoin as a whole. you desire to proclaim that if its not blockstream(core) sanctioned its an altcoin
you fail at down playing blockstream

4. so little opposition. lol i have seen some of the yay-sayers are just some consultancy/embassy non node needing groups of wannabies. all using the same website reference like its one guy just pasting in as many names of yay-sayers as he can find.
but when it comes to the ones that are nay-sayers.. some are listed as no response.
making the pole biased. with fake listings

also you can name me and others as loud mouths. but you can only argue that we talk alot. you cannot rebut the content of the issues. because deep down you know segwit isnt perfect.

pretending its ok to not upgrade is as bad as saying is ok to dilute the full node count down.
pretending that running prunned mode or no witness/stripped block mode allows other to sync from you.. yet the real answer is nope.

washing away all the "soft ""compatible" word bait and instead take a realistic end user view of it:
full nodes are full nodes by being forced to upgrade. but they have the opt out of segwit option to be treated as lite nodes, by doing nothing.

---

full node users want to be full node users for a reason.. saying the only way to be a full node is to run segwit.. is not "voluntary"
thats just fake word twisting.

blockstream need to accept if they dont get the vote, they dont get the vote.
and to not just point the finger..
but instead point their EARS to the community and listen

not just waste another year, pushing the same thing..
but instead re-code it to be a proper feature that actually is not just a half gesture 'hope' to fix

also
and if a segwit bug occured, where the blockheight was not dropped.. but devs got people to downgrade their nodes back to 0.12.. then all them segwit transactions become anyone can spends.

what their REAL desire is, is a TIER network

blockstream chose to go soft. (pools only)
instead of going full wetard tantrum and do a UASF. blockstream should actually ask the abstainers/ naysayers 'why not' ..
and instead of using lengthy wordplay.. blockstream should make code changes to then address the issues and gain more functions the COMMUNITY as a whole would appreciate.

funny part.
blockstream want to just ram segwit down the communities throats no matter what. no stepping back, no second recodes. no community feedback.. just segwit or nuke

so if bip9 doesnt have adequate 85%ish pool flag by august for hopes of 95% by november. blockstream wont re-evaluate.. they will just press the squeeze button to add threats and bribes and blackmails of UASF

..
now if UASF also fails to get segwit in.. guess what.. no backing down, no rcoding, no community review.. just make another deadline for end of 2018 and keep poking the bear with the half assed gestures of 2merkle no promise fixes verion segwit. just to delay and provoke the community.

http://www.uasf.co/

tl:dr;
dont expect blockstream(core) to even attempt to listen to the community by adding in any dynamic 1merkle (proper full node/pool consensus upgrade)version of segwit before 2019

lol

the real "commodity"

is a raw material
(oil, gold, beef)
which the quality matches enough that its comparable to the same raw material from other sources.
EG oil is oil - but diesel is different to unleaded car fuel, aswell as the obvious that diesel/unleaded are not raw.

the commodities markets are about raw materials that are sourced and marketed to later be used to make other produce.
EG
gold-> circuits/jewellery
oil-> diesel/unleaded car fuel/plastic products
wheat->bread

---

now take a breather

---

things like gold. although it sits on a commodity market. it can also sit on other markets too.
like asset markets and final product markets.

---

take a breather i know your itching to reply

---

now here is the thing. because bitcoin has certain 'features' that resemble golds ASSET features. does NOT make bitcoin pass the test of the "commodity" market test.

bitcoin is an ASSET currency. not a commodity.
once you realise that gold sits on many seats/markets because it has many properties both raw/final... physical/non-physical. and you separate those features to which market fits which.
you will start to see the separation of the asset features market and the commodity market and not be so quick to want to throw bitcoin into the "commodity" category simply with rebuttles of "but bitcoin is like gold"

lol
lets say we just think about:
600peta = ~44,000 S9 antminers(42857.14285714286 more precisely if your not factoring in slight hash variance)

now the antminer are retail $2k.. but manufactured at ~$500


$21,428,571(more precise asiccount) cost to make 600peta (~44k asics)
now using simple numbers (yep im gonna round them and not be as precise so dont knit pick, and just read the concept)

if blockstream started a manufactring company using its $70m
they could have made lets say 132,000 asics ($64m)

sold just 44,000 at $2k ($88m money back in pocket($94m including unspend $6m) AND kept 88,000 rigs for themselves..
Yep they could have 1.2Exahash running and now have $94m cash.

rinse and repeat
make 132,000 asics. sell 44,000 at retail.
keep 88,000(176k asics combined total) and then have another $88m($182m combined in pocket) (2.4exa)

rinse and repeat

this topic seems more like a racial attack and mis-information than a real bitcoin information topic, for these reasons.

1. any exchange in any country that touches FIAT needs to follow fiat regulations of that country
2. just because half the business relates to bitcoin does not make the fiat side magically not require fiat regulations
3. if an exchange doesnt want to follow fiat regulations then just fo bitcoin-alt exchanging without any fiat involvement
4. its not just china its near on every country.

LTC1BTC = Jiang Zhuoer.... not jihan

have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked

antpool litecoin less than 9%
yawn

lol
proof?
oh. and dont make it a reddit post from some random guy or a tweet from a random guy

lol you think achowe is unbiased?

also a mod should only be moderating language/scams/virus risks.
no tech knowledge needed.

moderating message based on tech is censoring out tech.

P.S

my comments to you were not in any way about thinking you had power. its more about correcting your rhetoric so that you dont
just turn into a blockstream puppet on a string.

but i am glad you are actually open minded enough to not just be spoon fed by the blockstreamists

the issue is actually that blockstream by using the 'going soft' 2merkle backdoor (anyoncanspend opcode exploit), shot themselves in the foot. and gmax only realised it last month. now he is waving fingers at every direction but its own. still refusing to back down and fix his own flaws

segit is not even active, so instead of trying to ENDLESSLY push it through in every way possible under its current 2merkle approach right upto end of 2018

they shoud just rewrite it as a proper full node consensus 1merkle, then use that oppertunity to include other community requested features such as a LOWER maxTXsigop limit and also dynamic blocks (3birds, one stone) for an even playing field PEER network acceptance.


and not waste april 2017-late 2018* trying to push the no guarantee  '2merkle tier network segwit' half gesture

*http://www.uasf.co/

the only ones shouting
"splits are bad"
"anything not core needs to split"
"if segwit isnt activate a splt will occur"
are the blockstreamists.

the rest of the community want consensus. meaning network PEER upgrade..
not blockstream upstream TIER network
not blockstream split, anything else= 'altcoin'

a real proper consensus.
also if the pools and nodes say no to segwit. no mandatory push it in by delaying another year
http://www.uasf.co/

instead blockstreamists should accept consensus said no. and then blockstream should listen to the community and try something the community do want.
non of this intentionally give to pools and then point fingers at pools with 'pools are attacking' crap.

pools and non-core nodes have done literally nothing. no deadlines, no demands, no threats.
so stop pointing the finger at everyone else when the root of the issues/debate/drama is blockstream

save repeating myself about segwits increased signalling which explains BU decreased signalling

 f2pool was good enough to have morals to admit something

?? blockstream devs have no control ??

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
luke JR.. oh look blockstream (p.s just a couple months ago it was gmax)

hmm who moderates the mailing list
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/bitcoin-dev-moderation
ozlabs... i wonder... oh look rusty russel

so thats LJR and RR of blockstream employment.
so whats next. hmm
oh the technical discussion category on this forum
oh look gmaxwell

so thats LJR,  RR and GM of blockstream employment.

---

separate matter..

---

have you then seen the segwit activation proposals
bip9, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, do UASF

UASF, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, dont give up, push harder until the end of 2018

seems blockstream can control what happens. and can only take no for an answer when its them saying no

to save repeating myself segwit is not the 'solution' its the bait for future debate to push an agenda.

bcoin -> purse

Coindesk =DCG
purse.. guess what
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse = DCG

jonald_fyookball

miners AND nodes have a symbiotic relationship. in satoshi's day it was [siamese twins joined at the hip]. mining and being the node were the same single joined entity.
now its separate[un conjoined twins] it doesnt mean only miners[one twin] get the vote or only nodes get the vote[one twin].. they both[as siblings] have equal power and should learn to share the power not fight for it.

blockstream INTENTIONALLY ignored nodes[twin A] and gave pools[twin B] the vote. but now that [twin B] is refusing to eat what daddy blockstream wants to feed them. blockstream is the one having the angry tantrum blaming the [twin B] pools.
even as much as to now have daddy blockstream tell twinA to beat up and kneecap twinB

blockstream should have prepared a proper healthy [food] solution that both nodes and pools [both twins] can happily accept. or if not happy blockstream should not try forcing it down their throats, but go back to the kitchen and prepare a different healthier meal

it does have a problem.
by not being allowed to scale. (im not talking about the baited one-time half gesture segwit)
we should have had real scaling changed years ago
scaling which grows naturally over time(not stupid gigabytes by midnight, but instead natural node capable and managed by nodes scaling over time(not devs, not pools))

thats  a close mind statement to make
like computers were never designed for call of duty or video calls 20 years ago, but now its natural and no big deal
let me guess, you would love to go back 20 years and tell skype, twitch, youtube, google, to never get into the computer industry because
online gaming and video content was never designed to work on a computer. i can hear you now "just dont bother"

your mindset seems to be either 0 to 1billion in one night else dont bother.
you fail to realise that natural growth over say 3 decades where nodes are allowed to set limits that change over time, CAN scale..
just not gigabytes by midnight, but instead slow natural capable increments over months-years


HALTing onchain growth wont solve issues either
whats next, shoot childrens feet or break their knee caps at 8months old out of fear that they may run infront of a car should they slowly learn to walk?
how about slowly teach them to walk and naturally ensure they check for risks, and learn when its safe to cross a road... kneecapping them is not the answer
i bet you would love a world of locking children into wheelchairs where a parent(hub) has control of risk by refusing movement(not signing) or controling it(setting the rules/routing costs/participants).
blocksize alone is not the solution. especially if devs are baiting the blocksize with stupid methods.
EG
v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops 20k maxTXsigops 4k 1mb baseblocklimit
v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops 80k maxTXsigops 16k (1mb baseblocklimit - 3mb arbitrary space if people opt-in)
that there alone is the devs letting more native quadratic spam continue.. and infact get worse. they are literally causing the problem to try and say making bigger blocks 'just doesnt work' .. the devs are baiting the narrative yet not doing a proper job of solving the issue

you can literally hear the future echo's from their corporate chambers ripple back through time
"we the king overlord devs gave you 4mb[empty halfbaked gesture] weight, but still blocks are being filled by 5 insanely spammy tx's that now take 8minutes to validate instead of 10 seconds"

they are baiting the community, not solving the problem
their solution:
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k
knowing not everyone moves to segwit keypairs to use the 'weight'- their echo chamber script "see people dont want more tx's, the 4mb isnt even being used"
knowing corps making a point will spam baseblock - their echo chamber script "see validation times have got worse"

real solution
1mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 20k, maxTXsigops 2k
2mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 40k, maxTXsigops 1k
4mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 500
again not
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k

real solutions reduce spammy validations times and allow more lean tx's over time. blockstream devs bait does the opposite