getting everyone 46million output to move to segwit keys. would in itself cause a mass 'spam event'
....think about it.

secondly then rejecting old transactions is just killing off the hoarders that are not actively spending.
thats like nuking someones old safety deposit box purely in the hopes it will reduce the queue at the banks cashier desk because savers who hardly ever/ dont move funds are then lost.

wake up
far far far easier to not give spammers too many opportunities.. rather than open new attack vectors and then build walls affecting innocent people.

EG
core v0.12
a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 4000tx sigops. (20k block sigops)
core v0.14
a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 16000tx sigops.(80k block sigops) meaning...
..yep core 0.14 makes a block have alot longer native quadratic validation time attack.

however. instead of locking out old UTXO's completely as a fix ImHash said..

keep the 4000tx sigops but grow the (80k block sigops) meaning now requires 20 bloated tx's to fill a block instead of 5 and the time is better and manageable,

yep
20 x 4000=80000 is better by many factors of multiplication, rather than
5 x 16000=80000

there is no reason not to use LN.. emphasis as a VOLUNTARY side service for those that need it.
but LN does have some limitations and issues which make it useful for only a niche of people. not everyone.

also the 1mb base still limits how many channels can be active. and needing more base block size will be needed to cover the more channels being open while also allowing people to replenish funds of channels to spend more. (which does require onchain space to restart new channels or add fresh funds to a channel)

some have done the maths.
to have enough channels open to cover say 7billion people with a 1year lock requires 133-200mb blocks
for a more reasonable 2week lock. that would be 5.2gb blocks. so thinking w can survive on 1mb blocks and (i laugh) 'be like visa' is impossible

miner centralisation?? nope

you do know that an ASIC has no hard drive.
ASICS do not store the blockchain and do not care about the data of a block or how big a block is.

an asic is just handed a hash and told how many0000 at the start of the solution is needed for a solved hash

1byte of data
65c74c15a686187bb6bbf9958f494fc6b80068034a659a9ad44991b08c58f2d2

or 1000byte
e6631d63c97fb6d9239bd7d1d0a8878e3ea383722635051f94efc5b2790fc441

or a gigabyte
442aaa99d16cf451b853451fbb0515ed696985f236924adf682b34e9531472b1

the hash a asic is given is the same length

---

the POOL/nodes however that do validate tx data need to ensure they do it in a timely manner.

for instance v0.12 had a txsigop limit of 4000ops.. and a blocksigop limit of 20,000ops
a malicious person can make 5 transactions of 4000ops to use up the blocks limits.

lets say it takes 0.01sec to process 4000ops
that becomes 0.05sec to do the whole block.

now imagine. instead of having
1mb block with 4,000txsopl and 20,000bsopl
we had
2mb block with 8,000txsopl and 40,000bsopl
using native keys quadratics would take 1min 40 seconds for the 5 tx's

where as if we had
2mb block with 4000txsopl and 40,000bsopl
using native keys even with quadratics would take 0.10 seconds for 10tx's
thus alleviating the quadratics scare because your not allowing a single transaction to multiply up the sigops. but allowing more transactions per block.

the real silly thing is,
core have actually put in
1mb base 4mb weight block with 16,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl
which is incredibly stupid and allows native key sigop spammers to do alot within the baseblock

if basing the block sigop limit on the weight. they should be doing
1mb base 4mb weight block with 4,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl
which would allow 20 bloated maxed out tx's instead of 5. but the timing would only be 0.2sec...
not hours and only five maxed out spam tx's that core 0.14+ allows

but now im just ranting.

LN DNS SEED.. look into it

asics were only introduced PUBLICLY in october 2013..

so you only made a couple months of good profit..

going mainstream dos not mean only upward trend in price.

i have seen days in 2012 where the price was stagnant for months. and that was when there were under 1mill users estimated. and about 20,000 merchants.

now there are estimate of millions of users and a few hundred thousand merchants. and the price is still wobbling in both directions upto 20% either way.

also recently.
i have seen examples where, due to fear of people holding funds in exchanges due to many factors like 'exchange bankruptsy via we been hacked fud'
the exchanges can swing in price with less people trading.. even when more people are USING


in short the utility does not exactly relate to price

things to help decentralisation

1. pools cannot submit a block again for atleast 20 blocks. thus no pool can easily get 51% alone and only achieve 5%
2. many divrese teams, implementations
3. dynamic blocks to not be reliant on dv team decisions for utility expansion.

how to become centralised

1. threaten PoW nuking if a certain rule isnt followed
2. one team proclaim they are the cor reference and ultimate decision makers of the sheep
3. things only change when a supergod dev says so

depends on the poison used.
EG imagine core changed ECDSA and proclaimed that all old coins using ECDSA were at risk of D-wave attack. and that exchanges should avoid accepting transactions that use ECDSA because it could be some d-wave attacker moving funds.

currently 46million UTXO's could suddenly not be accepted by exchanges, if that 'poison' tactic was ever used

go on.
show how bitcoins billions of dollar market cap is calculated

without just taking bitcoins price multiplied by how many coins are in circulation.

go on.
oh a few points
1. not all 16mill coins are on an exchange
2. there are not billions of dollars in bank accounts to back up each bitcoin.

but ill let you try and do the maths
go on

bitcoins $16billion market cap has nothing to do with value either.. its an empty bubble number.
i can make a altcoin with 5trillion coins. put  coin on an exchange and sell it to myself for $1 and suddenly the alt has a market cap of $5trillion

golds trillion cap is the same empty bubble number two.

based on the price of a few bars being on the market showing a PRICE. and multiplying that by how many bars exist.

price and market cap mean nothing

utility matters

if you cant do anything with gold, no electronics, no jewellery.. you might aswell be selling ice to eskimo's
selling somthing with no utility value does not mean that it still holds some price value

concentrate on expanding utility and the price will look after itself... not the other way round

your "rise in value"

oh please not again.. you referring to value(price)
try getting head out of the sand.

i and many other true bitcoiners that really understand these things and thinking long term, care more about the value(utility) which you have been trying to play mindgames with wording to try convincing that halting value(utility) is good for your beloved value(price).

lol nope ..
its deflationary

ok lets say there is a number.....um.. 1000
and inflation was 5% every 10 minutes

1050,, right.
but then the next 10 minutes is not an extra 50.. its actually 52.5
1102.5.. right

but then the next 10 minutes is not an extra 50.. its actually 55.125
1157.625.. right

inflation is that the new money INCREASES..

bitcoin however, stays at 50 per ~10mins.. then after ~4 years goes DOWN to 25 then after ~4 years goes DOWN to 12.5

have a nice day

check the dates of the mempool attack.
june/july 2016.
then it settled down
then increased in october ongoing until recently
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year

this was a core orchestrated attack to try swaying peoples belief that core features are desperately needed.
CSV in june/july.. segwit in the autumn

now core are planning a mandatory activation(UASF) they dont need to sway people over any more

meanwhile other implementations like BU have been running for years. no deadlines, no threats. no mandatory activations. no mining PoW nukes

my income does not come from protecting a brand. and certainly nothing to do with any particular brand

my income is from a business selling products and service completely unrelated to BU or any brand.
you can try pigeon holing me into any brand your side is REKT campaigning at anytime. but it wont help you.

but atleast admit your part of a REKT campaign thats only desire is to protect blockstream devs..
and atleast admit your REKT campaigns have nothing to do with a diverse decentralised PEER network.

otherwise your just being a hypocrit.

and i too have many coins and prefer a single network of diverse decentralised peers.
not a TIER network with one brand control

there would be less argument from me if cor got rid of their puppet masters blockstream. and the core 'independent' devs actually acted independently to help any and all 'brands'.. rather than locking themselves up into one brand and demanding it be the king brand of bitcoin

you always thought it was inflation..
bitcoin has been deflationary

before reading the next line. refrain from eating..

you forgetting the fraud of intersango?
how about becoming homeless by refusing to pay bills and saying he is doing so as a act of protest against corporations

also:

people need to realise bitcoin is just code. .. no arms, no legs, no voice.

bitcoin wont walk into the offices of amazon and sign a deal..
bitcoin did not name its storage of private keys a 'wallet' instead of a 'personal keyring' (better analogy).. people did
it requires people.

if you want YOUR local store to accept bitcoin YOU will need to ask your local store manager and maybe teach him/her about bitcoin. also show the manager statistics about how many local customers they can see using it regularly, etc.
this may require arranging meetups and organising your local area to concentrate on certain things.

bitcoin wont fly into YOUR local store like superman to help merchant adoption/mainstream growth.. PEOPLE like YOU(all readers of this post) need to get off of sitting on your hands waiting for superman. and do a little bit more in your area's

in short: it requires people to do something,

lightning is just a separate node/service on separate network offering a service offchain.. no fork no hassle anyone can run these whenever they like.. think of it much like depositing funds into coinbase or bitgo.. nothing big deal you choose to use it or not

---

---

---

softfork segwit will kill off 5% of the hash and drop many of the diverse implementations down to a second downstream filterd tier network if it reaches the 95% by mid november

---

USAF forces segwit to be activated and will cause more than 5% distruption. by mid november.

---

---

---

as for BU. HF. the concept is node and pool consensus, hence no deadlines no threats no active banning.. but those on the segwit side see it as an attack/opposition. so segwit would pull a banning node/ rejecting hashpower trigger if BU got to a certain level of community consensus.

a cpu only makes say 500mhash

an asic makes 1300,000,000mhash

there are over 50,000 asics in just one pool.

thats the equivelent of 130,000,000,000 desktop pc power creating hashes ever ~10 minutes average.

for a hacker to change the direction of bitcoin it needs to not only have atleast a few thousand nodes to counter the rules but then hashpower of more than 130,000,000,000pc's to make blocks that follow the new rules the hacker wants.

if it just had the few thousand nodes. all it would be doing is rejecting blocks it didnt like. meaning it would be just doing nothing more than holding a chain of no blocks locally in the hackers pc's and no one would sync to it because the rejecting real bitcoin rules wont give it any height to affect anyone else

---

just having hashpower without the nodes.. would too have the legitimate bitcoin nodes reject what a malicious pool was producing.

---

its a symbiotic relationship. nodes set the rules. pools follow. if either are in dispute rejects occur. neither has ultimate power. its a decentralised consensus mechanism of mutual agreement or mutual destruction.

there is no single point of failure unless we got rid of
the diverse node implementations of atleast 12 'brands' and only had one...
got rid of all the atleast 20 pools and only had one.

and that single node and pool brand was all controlled by one entity.

good to see that you are finally out of your reddit script cabin fever corner.
and had that epiphany moment

fresh air does many people good.
currently im on a beach with a blue sky with a hint of white fluffy cloud.

once you realise there are well over a dozen implementations. and that there is only one fighting for top TIER network (core). the rest want mutual independent consensus in a peer network

hopefully you start to see the bigger picture of the meaning of the words diverse decentralisation. you will start to see the importance of what independent diverse node consensus is all about.

may the fresh air aid you more into seeing behind the 'blame Bu at all costs' scripts of reddit and start seeing the big picture.

enjoy your stroll through the park