forget the erroneous fake and fud filled rhetoric of economic's making miners indecisive..

u say you like segwit.
do you even know segwit.

i hope you have atleast read some code, run some scenarios. and seen the issues and come to a fair judgement.
rather than just appearing to be a reddit script copy and paster.

here is a hint:
malicious sigop spammers and maleability spenders will still exist if segwit activated.. and will exist if segwit was changed to be activated in any other way, including via a node vote.
hint: native key utility will still function thus problems still occur. only those volunteering to move their funds to segwit keys are disarming themselves from being the cause. but doing nothing to stop actual bad actors doing it.

in short.
segwit wont solve the problems it promises and actually opens up new problems

bitcoin 0.13 minrelay fee 0.00001000    ($0.0125c)
bitcoin 0.14 minrelay fee 0.00005000    ($0.06c)

and that is just to allow it to be relayed by other nodes, before even getting to the 'average fee' of the 'auction' bidding fee war of fighting for next in line..

goodbye third world countries wanting to be paid for an hours labour

with the fiat valuation increase of the last couple years you would have thought they would have dropped the minimum relay fee, not increase it.
seems all they care about is using economics to out price spam. and not actual code rules to reduce spam.

all thy can control is the exchanges that touch fiat.
if you dont like chinese government. dont use an exchange that also transacts with chinese fiat.

are you talking about bitcoins ethos of 2009-2013 or are you talking about the reality of 2017. you cant be talking about both as things have changed

north korea has full control of its currency. no manipulation by wall street. no IMF, no outside influence.

however. using bitcoin although still avoiding the 'elitist' manipulation of the fiat puppeteers. it then becomes reactive to natural economics of international barter. which is the other end of the scale, and can reduce their control based on being too open.

i dont think they will want to be controlled by the wall street elite.. or lose control by the open market. they will want to remain right in the middle of self control of their own currency.

that said the citizens will always find a way to barter with bitcoin, even if it involves under the table private blackmarket trading beyond korean government oversight

i agree about the blockstream stuff.

the only thing is though.. in your OP you mentioned starting a new genesis block. which is by definition STARTING A NEW altcoin, rather than bilaterally splitting bitcoin to cause an doublespend-altcoin.

new genesis block = start from 0


agree again. EG Gmaxwell moderating the technical section of this forum and the theymos moderating this entire forum and reddit.
gmaxwell and luke Jr moderating the dev mail list and gmaxwell(until recently, but now luke JR) moderating the BIPS
basically acting as gatekeepers to brush away idea's that contradict blockstreams plans.


the 95% is more about reducing the chances of NATURAL orphan drama at an activation event. which can actually be futile a percentage to achieve unless the feature advertised actually did what it says..  and also that percentage may not be needed to be so high, to accomplish just a small natural orphan risk if it also had a high NODE acceptability to help reduce natural orphan risk.

the main thing is what occurs at activation.
blockstream for instance want to then bilaterally split the network by breaking its own 'backward compatibility' promise by INTENTIONALLY (not naturally) rejecting native blocks, which are actually valid to the network but just not created by blockstreams codebase. which is where this action can cause bigger orphan risks and where things get nasty. rather than it would if there was a real proper consensus implemented and just letting natural orphans do their job. (natural orphans happen for a very good reason)

the funny part.
even the segwit advocates dont realise the REALITY of what will occur at the activation date.
they think (wrongly) that the quadratic/malleability problems are 100% fixed.
they dont realise that its not about the activation. its about later things. such as needing EVERYONE to move all of them MILLIONS of unspents (everyone moves thier funds) from native keys to segwit keys(which this action alone would cause major mempool filling spam attacks). to then as long as EVERYONE never uses native keys again ever. will then disarm everyone from quadratic/malleability and only then get the fixes reach their promise,
which is something that will never happen.
malicious spammers will continue using native keys and the disruptions and issues will continue.

my point is that we should care more about THE CODE.
many times people say "core is made up of hundreds of people contributing"

but if those contributors are just spell checking, for example "GitHub" instead of "github" and not actually contributing to the CODE and RULES of the bitcoin network. thus it must be highlighted that core is not made up of hundreds of people really contributing. and instead just a dozen CODE contributors and a hundred spell checker contributors.

core should not over emphasis who is involved if they just have random shills who intentionally add a full stop or capitalise a noun just to fluff the numbers up a bit. as thats not true "peer review".
if the only thing these spell checkers are reviewing is the comments section of documentation and not the code itself its not truly helpful to the network or security of bitcoin.

i personally would applaud and hope lauda (when/if he learns C++) done something that helped the network and/or security of bitcoin. i just have a gripe with all of these people try to take a high ground for things that dont matter to the security of the network.

my method of being frank might be harsh. but my motive is to ensure better standards for something that has world reaching security implications to millions of people.

OP can make an altcoin.

also OP if you have any other " We need some real organization at the top." then its still going to be just as bad as blockstream dominance..
any dominance is bad.

also the majority of the community hate blockstream. and if the independent non ass kissing core devs got rid of blockstream out of core. then core (as a separate entity to blockstream) wont get the backlash its getting and earn back some respect

hyperledger is a multichain ledger. its only going to be used behind the scenes by those authorised to use it. but becomes unhackable because the data of hyperledgers main chain is distributed aswell as each chain is distributed. .but because only certain people have direct access its not 'openly public'

lauda i see you slipped your name into the contributors list.

#8852 `7b784cc` Mention Gitian building script in doc (Laudaa) (laanwj)

im laughing.

i see you still didnt learn C++ and just added a single line of comment... wait, the main bitcoin guy did, you just slipped your name in there
to pretend you are useful to bitcoin.

very low tactic lauda
please spend more time actually learning bitcoin and less time faking it <- do no ignore this point
p.s
also you couldnt even copy and paste the links properly

at this moment your UTXO is safe. (unless someone hacks your computer or someone you know gets to it to steal ur privkey to spend ur coin)

however what i say next does not affect current native style UTXO. but if you moved funds in the future (if mimblewimble was added to bitcoin) and moved them into a mimble confidential commitment. your then not safe

some numbskulls are envisioning a feature be added where by a mimble wimble manager for instance can take your UTXO (without asking)
mix it with other funds. and then put the funds you 'deserve' (if you think mimblewimble manager would be honest) into a new block. so that your funds are then spent to then prune old blocks which have no UTXO's left in them.

basically giving third parties access to move funds on your behalf but 'selling the idea' as a fix to pruning old blocks and being a mixer service.(but understating and hiding the ability to move funds without request in the small print)

personally id say let mimble wimble be something only available on a voluntary sidechain(altcoin) that people can volunteer to move funds into to then be messed with.
not something that all bitcoin tx's should be a possible victim to (should mimble wimble be less than honourable).

---

other people are also thinking about(as ur OP hints) adding dead man switchs where after X years/blocks UTXO's are then able to be killed off and then treated as a miner fee.. but that is like one of the big no no things i do not think any of the community will ever come to consensus to ever change.

---

though pretty much anything can be changed if given enough consensus support. by having diverse nodes (EG not everything programmed by blockstream) thus keeping the network diverse and decentralised prevents any of the big no no rules from changing without consent.

its not just about just node counts. or pool counts. its also about diversity of who is in control of the node updates. we need MORE 'teams' of differing nodes not less.

consensus would still be reached on the utility fixes such as blocksize. by actually getting the 'teams' to not want to centralise as kings but to workon the same level playing field and come to a compromise of what all can agree on consensually. (preferably done by the nodes rather than dev 'kings')

but its best to not have one dev team making all future decisions alone and bypassing node consensus

side note for you both,
"malicious forking"
many people are over using umbrella terms. of "forking"

try to stick with clear definitions (even im using gmaxwells buzzwords to keep things clear(so even he cant poke the bear))

EG soft = pools move without node
EG hard = node move and pools follow

consensus = if its near unanimous agreement(few orphans orphans now and again but one chain)
controversial = if its arguable low agreement (lots of orphans before it settles down to one chain)
bilateral split = intention avoidance of consensus/orphans/opposition (an altcoin creator with second chain sustaining life)

---

now then
segwit is in essense a soft consensus.
segwit has 2 parts. although pools change the rules without nodes consent. segwit has other things. like changing the network topology (FIBRE) so that they are upstream (central/top close to pools) able to translate and pass downstream block data in a form nodes can consent to/accept.

however putting segwit aside and looking at bip9 which is how pools were given the vote. a soft bilateral split can happen
bip9 allows
soft(pool) BILATERAL SPLIT

in essence ignoring opposing pools where by those other pools still hash
which can lead to:
a split of 2 chains where they continue and just build ontop of THEMselves, or
they give up and find other jobs, or
they change software and join the majority

---

totally different bip not even in any bitcoin version right now..
hard(node and pool) BILATERAL SPLIT
new UASF does this. (although the buzzword is meant to make it sound easier by stroking the sheep to sleep by pretending its a "soft" (S of UASF)fix. but because its node caused. its hard)

because it involves intentionally rejecting valid blocks purely based on who created it. it leads to the pool:
split of 2 chains where they continue and just build ontop of THEMselves, or
they give up and find other jobs, or
they change software and join the majority.

however because nodes are doing this. it can cause further controversy(of the nodes not pools) because the nodes are then differently selecting what is acceptable and hanging onto different chains

which is where UASF is worse than hard consensus or hard bilateral due to even more orphan drama

read the code not the reddit scripts.

your putting words into people mouths.

1. Bu/bigblockers dont want one brand running anything... most bu/bigblockers are happy with bitcoinj, xt, classic, btcd, etc all running on the same level playing field all using real consensus to come to agreement.. and if core got rid of blockstream corporation. would be happy with core too.(main gripe is blockstreams centralist control)

2. small blockers have shown distaste for anything not blockstream inspired/funded..  (rekt campains agains bitcoinj, xt, classic and bu)

3. correct(people keep funds on thier personal privkeys and use future LN services voluntarily)

4. correct(people move funds to new keys and multisigs where payments need an LN counter party signing. but done forcefully due to politics/fee war games)

what you dont realise is while fox news is screaming BOMB THEM BOMB THEM BOMB THEM
america is doing trade deals with them.

EG
IMF had the UK and america in thier SDR pool. and in october 2016 they added china.. http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/30/AM16-PR16440-IMF-Launches-New-SDR-Basket-Including-Chinese-Renminbi

secondly russia. while people think america hate russia and sanctioned them and removed visa/mastercard utility, stopped trade deals, blah blah blah.. america actually done trade and actually done deals giving russia money.
EG
international space station supply and maintenance funding(while cutting U.S's own NASA funding)
other things like you can buy iphones, mcdonalds and many other american things in russia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-russia-idUSKBN15F111

TOTAL year 2000    imports:2,092.5m    exports:7,658.5m    
TOTAL year 2013    imports:11,144.7m    exports:27,085.7m
    
so avoid fox news

hope lauda has learned about consensus.
i also hope lauda has learned about native key utility still able to cause disruption even after segwit activation

lauda you need not reply to me until you have learned the concepts.
all personal attacks are just rustles of tumbleweed blowing with the wind.

i would prefer technical rebuttles that have substance beyond the usual simplistic "wrong because.. " ..personal attack

please dont waste time with personal attacks and wisely use the time to learn bitcoin concepts and become wiser for it.

yep seems blockstreams next plans are wait for it..
soft(pool) BILATERAL SPLIT (bip9 allows this if u didnt know already)
hard(node and pool) BILATERAL SPLIT (new UASF does this. although the buzzword is meant to make it sound easier to stroke the sheep to sleep by pretending its a "soft" fix)

silly thing is they are really desperate to avoid hard(node and pool) consensus. which the community want so that other features can be added to and then just have one big activation event of everything the entire community want in one go)

but they are willing to do anything to get segwit activated without playing at the same level. even though segwit wont do as promised in any shape or form.(hard,soft / consensus,bilateral)  it just wont do what is promised.

its not segwit 'activation' that fixes anything.
its having everyones transactions only using segwit keys that fix the issues they promised, which will never happen.
malicious people will just stick to native keys. its that simple.
but blockstream have yet to come to that realisation as they have not done enough scenario tests. they have only done 'does it break' tests.. not any real 'does it fix' tests.

funny part is they went soft because of the fake rhetoric of hard consensus leads to a split.
but now willing to do a hard bilateral split to avoid hard consensus... (facepalm)

they are getting desperate.

they are doing all they can to avoid doing something the whole network can agree on. but then try pointing the finger in the other direction while they do the exact things they falsely accuse others of doing.

it has become totally ridiculous

you brought up the question of 'malicious actors gaming the system, by running lots of nodes with restrictive settings?'
so im just assuming you mean sybil attack.. and assuming you mean restrictive settings.. where by i gave an example of 500kb..

which is just as likely to happen even now or at anytime in the past it was as likely to have happened.

..
malicious actors gaming the system, by running lots of nodes with restrictive settings is no more or less a threat no different than the last 8 years.
there are many ways to mitigate these threats. EG recognising a jump in node count of nodes using things like amazon servers. and not including them in the tally. that way REAL decentralised nodes decide what the settings are, by simply not caring about amazon server capabilities.

that way the network sticks to what rational/true nodes are ok with

..
most sybil attacks are where people run LITE nodes(not full nodes) but tweak the useragent to look like its a full node to then spam out bad requests.

a simple way to know if a node is a full node could be:
take 3 numbers from 1to 450000...

say 234567, 321234, 432111(randomly chosen at each handshake)
my node could send that. and want a reply. EG the other node has to grab the block hashes of those 3 block through its own blockchain.. sha256 them together and send me the result. which if correct they get whitelisted
(imagine it like a 'are you human' captcha 'select the image of a roadsign....... but an 'are you fullnode' sha the hashes of these 3 blocks' )

it could go one step further.. by asking for tx number 27(randomly chosen at each handshake) of those blocks to sha together the TXID's

most sybil nodes malicious attackers wont shell out $$$ buying thousands of amazon accounts with 100gb data allowance each
so they wont have the blockdata to reply.

however real nodes will have the data. so its as an example just one way to check nodes are actually full nodes.

calling someone a liar . but no technical rebuttal is just wasting your own time.
all i say to you is
[yawn]... oh look a tumbleweed blowing down the road.

try spending time learning about bitcoin and less time just mouthing off. it will actually help you to learn bitcoin so please learn it

remember "its bad coz its bad" is not a valid argument.

your talking about the same threat as what could have happened over the last 8 years by sybil attacking the network with lots of 500kb limit nodes