yep
reduce TX sigops limit. in effect much like not allowing 0 fee tx's into blocks. not allowing tx with XXXXX sigops into blocks

but thats a separate thing to what segwit does.. moving the signature= only segwit tx's are affected and doesnt do anything for native tx's

best analogy for sgwits proposal
"we fear people will want to shoot other people in the leg.. who volunteers to be amputated so they cannot be shot in the leg or run around to shoot others"

reducing sigops.. "is like a metal detector scanner at the door. if you have a big lump of metal on you.. you cant come in no matter if you amputated or full bodied"

no one is against offchain solution as a VOLUNTARY side service
LN does not need segwit.
LN can be just a side commercial service much like bitgo or coinbase.com.

but centralising the network where it forces everyone into using LN. BIG no no

LN has a niche that some can happily use. but LN has limitations too. not everyone will benefit from it even if forced to use it.
LN is not the end solution. so treat is only as a future side service

on testnet.
thats like saying litecoin works because it has been tested since 2011.. but throw it into bitcoins mainnet overnight and see what happens when you try telling the world you can get to do litecoin stuff..

show me a segwit transaction on bitcoins mainnet.. oh you cant
show me a segwit block on bitcoins mainnet. oh you cant.

show me if segwit is so "backward compatible" how come no tests are done on bitcoins mainnet to show how "compatible" and "safe" it is.oh you cant.
show me segwit is letting nodes vote... oh you cant.
show me how segwit if activated stops native transactions.. oh you cant
although segwit removes automated relay of unconfirmed segwit tx's to native nodes, show me how segwit prevents MANUAL copy/paste of unconfirmed segwit tx to old nodes.. oh you cant

stop reading the 30 second elevator sales pitch of segwit and learn the real features learn the capability and their limitations and their effectiveness, learn the weaknesses, learn the loopholes and learn what it doesnt solve.

then your utopian bubble pops loud enough to wake you up

save repeating myself

dont be sure of that if blockstream get control. mimble wimble will unconfirm your funds and prune them out the old blocks and you have to really hope and pray the mimble manager puts the funds back again into a new block where the output is your address. rather then designating your funds as 0btc output to you to then claim as a miner fee or going to other parties instead as part of the mixer feature..

yep its a possibility

solution dont let blockstream centralise the network to their biased decisions

and after you double spend....?? ??

oh..
you will still see sigop bloat and blocks that dont reach the 2.1tx count and you realise the promises have not been met..

then you are back to where you all were before... begging to get the spam down and tx prices down just be able to actually withdraw your double spent funds...
realising you spent a whole year believing in something thats just an empty gesture

edging... yes
achieving.. no

banks WONT use any of the decentralised open altcoins or bitcoin as their mechanism.
banks will develop their own which they can control 100%. but have the 'automation' and security of auditing and transport of data features that blockchains offer.

in short making the world movements of 'money' more efficient. but still controlled by bankers

prove it!
explain how it actually achieves fixing quadratic sigop spam 100%
explain how it actually achieves fixing malleated tx's 100%
explain how it actually achieves the 2.1x txcount boost

read passed the 30 second sales pitch script you have been handed and actually read the code/small print. you will start to see the holes in the promises

LOL read the code. learn it
native keys will still quadratic spam.. all segwit does is disarm the segwit priv/pubkey users that voluntarily move their funds to segwit keys from being able to quadratic/malleate.. but doesnt disarm the native key users.
segwit doesnt disarm the network. meaning soft or hard consensus or bilateral. segwit will never be able to achieve the quadratic/malleation fix promise

they cant even just switch off native key utility after activation either because there are millions of unspent outputs based on native keys and for segwit to even work would need to allow those native unspents to be spent.

segwits 'malicious bloat/doublespend fix' - empty gesture that wont work (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)
segwits '2.1mb boost' - empty gesture that get to that expectation (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)

all segwits ability does is move blockstream to being the centralised "upstream filters"

what UASF (realname HBS (hard bilateral split)) is offering is that nodes become political by rjecting blocks not based on rules. but based on which 'team' a block supports.

im laughing hard that even the "backward compatibility" promise is falling apart by actively blocking native blocks by blockstreamers.

three word: desperation to centralise


P.S
the exaggeration that antpool jihan is full on BU can be easily dismissed

456112    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool xz0 5 XcS

456097    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool usa4 #Y*J X'f*
456094    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool usa2 ' X#K
456089    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool bj11 ` X%Y
456081    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool bj11 ` X)x
456080    0x20000000    AntPool     Mined by AntPool usa2 ' X
}
456065    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool usa3 Ϩ X d\

456064    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool xz0 5 Xk
456060    0x20000000    AntPool    |Mined by AntPool usa4 #Y*J X^!iJ
456057    0x20000000    AntPool    yMined by AntPool usa2 ' Xقc
456042    0x20000000    AntPool    jMined by AntPool usa3 Ϩ XҢ?Q
^ no sign of BU spport

456092    0x20000000    AntPool    #Mined by AntPool wy/EB1/AD6/ X
w
456058    0x20000000    AntPool    z#Mined by AntPool bj8/EB1/AD6/) XmmWb<r"%]84CK2Z"U0
456040    0x20000000    AntPool    h#Mined by AntPool bj8/EB1/AD6/) XmmmxR7]ª"{M9ť}-YC    
456039    0x20000000    AntPool    g#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ Xnmm:d"QN5˞[J,g<mg D

^ sign of BU support

as you can see even inside "antpool" there is still indecision either way. so stop scrapping the bottom of the barrel, looking for fake doomsdays just as a excuse to create a create doomsday by allowing blockstream lovers to bilaterally split the network rather than work WITH network consensus

WAKE UP
it was blockstream that bypassed user consent by going soft!!!
now they want super hard bilateral.
again avoiding safe hard consensus which is what the general community want

UASF is a hard BILATERAL SPLIT

real funny thing is blockstream know Soft consensus failed them
but instead of doing the next best thing. a hard CONSENSUS.. they are wanting to jump straight to the thing they prtended going soft would avoid.. going for hard bilateral split.

shows how desperate they are..

just remember one thing. segwit RULES do not fix the network.
people can just avoid using segwit priv/pub keys and continue using native priv/pub keys and still do sigop quadratic spamming and malleation. even if segwit was activated as a soft consensus, soft bilateral, hard consensus hard bilateral.

in short segwit is an empty gesture that will never meet its promise.

the desperate moves by blockstream to go full 'wetard' and jump straight to hard bilateral rather then give in and do what the community want(hard consensus).
and the desperation of gmaxwell to beg the community to go bilateral.
along with his sheep script readers desparately trying to make it sound like its not blockstream that want bilateral splits... reveals that blockstream want be be centralist controllers rathr then going hard consensus and just being on the same playing field as non blockstream implementations

IMF & Worldbank wont make a one world currency par-say.

they have/will however control, secure, be the transport conduit, and the auditor of all the future FIAT currencies that get into using blockchains.
much like merging SWIFT, RTGS and other international wire transfer protocols into one

hyperledger allows subchains(sidechains/altcoins) that are all in the end audited by the hyperledger.
hyperledger itself wont have a 'coin' but will have a ledger to list and secure the audits of the other FIAT chains that join to the hyperledger network.

IMF, worldbank and BIS wont make money just having a "one world currency". they make money on the trades (forex swaps) between the different currencies and the demand/ supply of different currencies.

so there wont be a "one world currency" but there could/would be a one world network

OP

the banks and blockstream devs are working on it in the HYPERLEDGER project
where banks using hyperledger will have their own sidechains for each bank. and then from what i can see LN or some othr blockstream dev coded thing allowing hops between bitcoin to the hyperledger sidechains.

forget stalling/halting its tx/s ... that wont affect fiat.

how about something revolutionary...
we stop basing bitcoin on the Dollar value.

wait. dont through my post aside read on.

imagine we measure bitcoin against COST OF LIVING. (minimum wage hours for instance)

and make it so right now its ~160 hours (equivalent of ~$1200 now) so no real big disaster change.
then slowly let the fiat markets realise:

160 cuban hours or 160 nigerian hours come at different fiat value.
thus let the fiat markets arbitrage each other until cuba nigeria, ukrain, (180+ countries) duke it out arbitrarily until it forces fiat of all countries to even out to each other. where peoples living costs and value of labour and life all stabilise...

that alone would change fiat markets perception of bitcoin more than stalling a bitcoin code feature.

your admiration of nash overpowers the logical understanding of bitcoins new paradigm that sits outside the concept of money.

your admiration of nash makes you overstate nash and make him sound bigger than he is by these name drop games. an example being " he has tried to talk to"..
meaning nash did not succeed. meaning whats the point even mentioning it.

i want a banana. i tried to eat one...

but what the hell does what i try to and fail at getting, have to do with bitcoins new paradigm.
screw it.
my grandfather tried to talk to einstein. and although i admire the old guy( my relation) . it has no relevance to bitcoin.

in short trying to stop bitcoin by endlessly showing your adoration to nash and talking about nashes philosophy of money. wont cause bitcoin to be stable value(utility/desire) because you are forgetting the logic and features of bitcoin and only thinking about it from the narrow old principles of money.

bitcoin is beyond money

34 pages and you still havnt even got to the summary of the topic. instead its turning into a game of how many times you can mention his name and bitcoins name at the same time

it was never messy,
but core (the 2 blockstream paid devs) backtracked the agreement and decided their soft way was better. by throwing out mindless doomsday theories and fake risks and fake promises

but has now shoot themselves in the foot because although pools get the ultimate vote. and no official node vote.. pools are smart enough to know what pools do can be rejected by nodes. so waiting out (60% undecided either side) for an unofficial node count threshold to be met before risking anything.

the main pools infavour of segwit (slush/BTCC) actually have financial ties to the same VC as blockstream (DCG: VC of coindesk propaganda, blockstream and BTCC)
which is why BTCC jumped on the segwit flag waving train before even thinking of running scenario's or knowing the full list of pro's cons' limitations and realities of segwits 'promises'

hmm

strange thing is gavin hearn ver and a dozen others main non-core devs believe in NODES setting the rules and pools working within nodes rules all on the same network.

yet its CORE that are by passing nodes setting the rules by going soft to give pools the ultimate vote (and ultimate control as upstream filters(gmaxwells own words)...

. i expect my post to be deleted as it reveals the honest observation of how consensus works and how core intentionally sidestepped node consensus to cause the thing they pretend to cry about

here is a core/blockstream dev trying super hard to push people away from bitcoin into an altcoin. simultaneously gaining core ultimate control of the network and also still giving pools the vote by taking away the node opposition

---

maybe icebreaker should ask his best friend gmaxwell to back off and stop wanting to be king and start playing on the same playing field... as the many others want

---

pools are not the boss.

nodes=boss
pools=secretary (requiring boss to agree and accept secretaries work)
devs=workers.

i edited your question to give u your answer

if the winklvii are prepared it may be just a press of a button to spam media that they are open in minutes. or it might be a few days/weeks/etc for the winklevii to finalise the last few tweaks before going live. no one can know for sure.

95% is just about network ORPHAN risk(of ~5%) that is all its about.... reducing orphan risk between the pools.
(separately, user nodes could still reject blocks by recognising a certain block version and reject it and cause more orphans, if they so chose to)

not about getting to 95% new feature benefit.
even after activation segwit doesnt offer any fix.

it requires USERNODES to update to yet another new (not yet released) version.
AND THEN (separate requirement) users to voluntarily move funds from native priv/pub key to segwit priv/pub keys and only use segwit keys for.. wait for it.. for only those segwit KEY users to be disarmed from the issues of those users being able to make sigop bloat/malleated tx.
while still not dealing with those that stay with native keys(even using segwit as just a node)

like i explained at the bottom of post #5 above about if 50% of users using segwit keys causes a 50% possible boost to tx count... but knowing malicious users will not use segwit keys.. wont be even help one bit with sigop quadratic spam/malleation

the funny part of SFSW is by allowing native nodes to continue..
not only will malicious sigop spammers continue to make sigop spam with native keys.
not only will malicious malleation double spenders continue to make malleated tx's with native keys.
 but it opens up new attacks too(even with segwit changing the network topology to be upstream filters to stop automated relay of unconfirmed SW tx's to native nodes) MANUALLY grabbing SW tx's from a SW node and pasting it into a native node. can cause issues

basically meaning segwit doesnt 100% fix the issues
basically meaning segwit doesnt disarm everyone
basically meaning segwit doesnt get all the benefits it promised

and it opens new issues.