its only hard to get consensus if people do not learn consensus (such as those not understanding BU or segwit)

those WITH NODES should spend more time learning consensus. rather than reading sci-fi scripted doomsday rhetoric

politics of doomsday "gigabytes by midnight" "call anything not blockstream a alt" are the time wasting crew causing delay in REAL LEARNING

yes its hard to wake the sheep up and get them motivated to learn how bitcoin actually works to then make the informed decisions.
but we are not talking about millions of users. but just 6000ish people who run nodes(a few people run many nodes) need to learn how bitcoin
really works to make them decisions.(pools are amongst them 6000)

its not impossible. but just harder due to politics. not 'immutable dynamics'

you were not understanding my sarcasm to bring up the point

the punchline being someone from nintendo being the activision insider saying to activision not to expand passed nintendo limits. because X,Y,Z reasons.

also the technical limits of 1996 are not the technical limits of 2016
so stating activision should not progressively grow into 3D gaming and then as years go on increase to HD 3d gaming.. and instead only ever stick to nintendo rules of 2d...

is stupid.

---

ofcourse logic dictates dont make call of duty:MD in 1997..
but bringing the logic to bitcoin.. "gigabytes by midnight cant happen"

but..
PROGRESSIVE, dynamic, NATURAL GROWTH. where NODES define the parameters of what they can cope with. (even BU know this and know/use consensus) will allow growth and scaling.

all you need to do is ignore the fake doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight" and replace that scripted mindset with "natural growth over time (months, years, decades)

then you see the difference.

in short we WILL NOT suddenly get 1billion people over night. so ignore the "overnight capability" doomsday.. as the fake reason to halt real scaling

imagine if everyone ignored the "gigabytes per midnight"
we could have been at 2mb REAL blocksize in 2015(nodes can cope with)
we could have been aiming for 4mb REAL blocksize in 2017(nodes can cope with)
and then by 2019ish 8mb (nodes can cope with*)

*telecommunications company have a 5 year plan they are in the middle of. (landline: fibre optic, mobile: 5G) so by 2019 things will be different then now
*hardware capability, moves on too.. (raspberry pi min specs of RPi1 vs RPi3 have scaled 20-60 fold for bitcoin capability)
*people on average upgrade hardware between 1year-4 years average

---

we should not halt natural scaling onchain just to FORCE users offchain. there can be a symbiotic relationship where LN is voluntary side service. and not an essential only utility to spend.

the fee war is not due to natural scaling not coping but due to DEV decision to halt and delay scaling to push LN to become 'essential'

1. in segwits case . BLOCKSTREAM GAVE only pools the vote. so dont blame pools for it

2. in any vote.(for any change to rules, consensus, network protocol) without nodes being ready, pools wont do anything due to orphan risk and network safety and other things.
so whether nodes get an official vote or not, smart pools would hold off voting for anything unless they see a good node count to cope with the network change

yep

but thats 2 months at best assumming ALL tx's were segwit migrators. remember usual tx flow of people paying people and spam fill blocks too. so imagine it like many months of mempool crashing and fee war price increases with still no guarantee's

other proposals of just blocksize increases (real blocksize increases) either dynamic or spoonfed fixed amount, dont rely on moving funds to cause it. so those options dont cause months of mempool bloating.

imagine if: activition 1996 said
"we cannot scale passed 2d shoot-em-ups' on a nintendo and Call of duty:MW because 56k internet and 4gb hard drives. we should never make call of dutyMW, never work on growing gaming passed nintendoNES and instead build plastic figurines that dont require electronics so the kids have something to play with that has no limitations."

not an exact science. i used the average of 2100tx per block*144 block with the 18mill tx average
18m/144/2100=59days

---

but think about it. 18million transactions (46mill outputs) all trying to rush to 'opt-in'
... mempool crash

but think about it. will malicious users 'opt-in' or see a good oppertunity to stick with native-to-native and cause further disruption while the sheep think they can achieve 100% voluntarily.

46million outputs
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

on average equates to about 18million transactions

if every user voluntarily moved their funds (including the oldtimers and satoshi)
if every block was filled with ONLY the 'opt-in' to segwit (average native tx to a segwit tx)

AT BEST. 2 months of constantly filled blocks just to pay themselves just to 'opt-in' to segwit

im guessing you havnt seen blockstreams elements "liquid" which is the internal ledger between a few exchanges

first of all..
LN doesnt need miners to agree on any rules that impact LN
LN can run right now, it doesnt need new 'features'
LN just needs to fix bugs that never had to do with any features of 'fixes'.
but in short people can set up a LN service now if they had the coding prowess. segwit would not have changed it one bit.

secondly
its blockstream that chose to avoid real consensus and push segwit to the pools to vote on instead of real consensus. knowing the pools wont push it without having the nodes to accept it.
its a self fulfilling stall tactic. whee blockstream get to sip margaritas and sit back playing innocent

dont blame pools. blame blockstream for the stall tactics.

also the fee's are on the rise due to blockstream by the the removal of priority, the removal of reactive fees. the addition of average fee(stays up even in low demand) increase and inclusion of fee filters and higher minimum relay fee.

they have removed logic, rules and code which would have kept costs down. and replaced it with economic notions of 'just pay more'

simple solutions dont require big re-writes
real workable solutions dont need excuses of why X, Y, X are needed . then downplaying it when its revealed that X and Y are not needed and Z is actually an A(complete opposite)

simple solutions don't need to promise things and then pretend the promises still promise even when it wont be achieved even if they got super majority
simple solutions dont need to suck eggs and write scripts with buzzword of the month competitions to show which spammers are involved in the competition (like a secret handshake)(bucoin btucoin, ad-hom, conservative)

well they havnt done it in the last 2 years.. so that immediate debunks you and blockstreams myth of them actually wanting to do anything controversial or bilateral.

if the intention was to be controversial or bilateral. you better come up with a better excuse

im starting to see what game jbreher is playing.

now its public that segwit cant achieve sigop fix. he is now full on downplaying how bad sigops actually is...
simply to down play segwits promises by subtly saying 'yea segwit dont fix it, but it dont mtter because there is never been a sigop problem'

rather than admit segwit fails to meet a promise. its twisted to be 'it dont matter that it doesnt fix it'.

much like luke JR downplaying how much of a bitcoin contributor his is at the consensus agreement. by backtracking and saying he signed as a human not a bitcoin contributor.. much like changing his hat and pretending to be just a janitor to get out of the promise to offer a dynamic blocksize with core.

https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

general member - blockstream

gmaxwell the devs 'boss' (CTO) works for blockstream which have an agenda and their own platform.
Gmaxwell loves Monero.

gmaxwells wage comes from AXA and DCG, which DCG owns coindesk and many other services. and also zcash.

DCG and blockstream is also involved with the bankers hyperledger.

also another blockstream employee, who invented FIBRE (ringfensing blockstream nodes around the bitcoin pools as the top of the network topology) (termed upstream filters). is now working with 'chaincode' to create hyperledgers 'fabric'

its scripts
other script words to watch for contain
"conservative"
"ad-hom"
"BUCoin"

many people repeating the same thing=brainwashing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA

you start to spot the obvious script readers
and the funny scripts from blockstreamer
"BU causing a fork will damage bitcoin" .... later, same people.... "BU should fork off"

its like they dont even understand what they are saying it. and just saying it for some competition or some prize


really?
OMG
i know you love gmaxwell.. just buy him a wedding ring already.

P.S
if you think bitcoin cannot survive without gmaxwell.. then you have no clue what bitcoin really is

devs can come and go...
if you think bitcoin should be controlled by only a couple devs and 100 spell checkers... then its you admitting you want centralisation and human control.
go play with fiat and kiss IMF ceo's ass

FTFY

but taking rational user adoption over natural time period of years/decades.

but then squashing it into a fake rhetoric of what users will do overnight. to over sell the need for commercialised hubs... is the OP's failure and the failure of the script writer the OP follows.

stopping natural progressive growth over time, using "gigabytes by midnight" and "visa capacity by 11pm" are stupid and illogical reasons to proclaim as justifications to halt onchain growth.

whats next amputate your kids before they are 6 months old due to fear of statistics that your offspring may run into a car sometime befor he is 40. thus no legs=no running=problem solved?

whats next go back in time to 1996 and tell activision to not ever progress on making Call of Duty games in the future because 1996 tech cant handle the need for a 1mb internet and 60gb hard drives because 1996 only has dialup and 4gb hard drives...

also worth noting

miners dont care about blocksize.

an ASIC holds no hard drive. an asic receives a sha256 hash and a target.
all an asic sends out is a second sha256 hash that meets a certain criteria of X number of 0's at the start

miners dont care if its 0.001mb or 8gb block..
block data still ends up as a sha hash

and a sha hash is all a miner cares about

---

pools (the managers and propagators of blockdata and hash. do care what goes into a block)

when talking about blockdata aim your 'miner' argument to concern pools ... not the miner(asic)

you can do that now. find a few people that agree with you. and then set your node to blacklist everyone apart from those people.
thus starting your own network that wont orphan against bitcoin because it doesnt see bitcoin.

you dont need any big community activation event. just find people that want the same as you and connect to them and ban the rest.

you then have your own altcoin

by limiting blocks ability to make a 1mb tx
by having improvements of libsec
by having hardware improvements (raspberry Pi is now atleast v3) quadratics doesnt become an issue.

if blocks grow to say 8mb we just keep tx sigops BELOW 16,000 (we dont increase tx sigop limits when block limits rise).. thus no problem.

however needing to rely on "probability of time" or "hope of 100% user migration of funds to segwit keypairs" is not a good enough solution to me and not a good enough thing to be selling segwit as the solution for. (because 100% key adoption wont occur, malicious users will stay with native keys on purpose)

so there has never been an excessively quadratic blocks in bitcoin.. due to faith in "time"

are you sure

careful how you reply, careful what you say next. the blockchain history never lies