lol
NODE CONSENSUS
learn it..
its been many since i started asking you to learn about bitcoin. please take less time trolling as if you know, and more time actually learning to actually know. then you may find yourself able to help the community more. rather than just crying "wrong"

if nodes get consensus pools block attempts end up getting rejected by not following the rules and miss out on their rewards and just wasting their own time doing empty blocks because the 20second-2minute advantage of doing empty blocks becomes useless because their blocks get rejected anyway with such an example nod consensus rule.

remember
nodes= bosses
pools=secretary
devs=workers

we already know YOU think devs=boss and devs give power to pools. but thats not how bitcoin works or should work. which is why the soft fork is undecided

WRONG

i would do a lauda and not explain why..
but lets not be lauda.

miner CAN be forced.
add a new rule to node consensus of validating blocks..
EG
blocks need atleast 1500tx included or get rejected

a new priority fee formulae doesnt have to mean zero fee's for everyone.

but the old fee formulae was more about calculating the value of the tx against the bytes. which if 'rich' enough you can counter the bytes and get priority. so ended up being a rich vs poor (in favour of the rich)

a new priority could be about not value.. but age, bytes and using the CLTV mechanism for people to voluntarily 'lock-in maturity' of up to 24 hours to say that if people are willing to spend less often they pay less.. if their tx's are leaner they pay less.
but if you bloat a tx and want to spend it every block it gets extremely expensive

where by those wanting to spend more often than 24 hours on a regular basis would then find it voluntarily beneficial to use second layer niche services (LN)

below is an example, although not perfect shows how bloat and respending to soon can be 'punishable' and being lean and displaying desire not to spam can be rewarding

banks are developing their own altcoin.
its called hyperledger lots of international banks are involved and loads of private finance firms are too.

dont expect banks to get involved in bitcoin. because banks want a currency they can 100% control.
hense they are building hyperledger

nope a commodity is a raw material used to create other produce.
gold=jewellery +electronics
oil= fuel+plastic
wheat=bread+animal feed
beef=hamburgers+steak

bitcoin is an ASSET.
gold.. has 2 categories. as a raw material it is a commodity. but as a final product, it is an asset.

bitcoin resembles golds 'values' in its asset category market. not its commodity category market.

dont confuse bitcoin as a commodity by not understanding that gold sits on 2 markets.

EG
grannies gold necklace(asset) grannies necklace hold value that can be passed down to relatives or used for barter in pawn shops or between people privately, but has a different value than gold in commodity markets sold to industry.

this is where remittance ONCHAIN will only work if people start only sending funds 'home' once every few months instead of once a week because bitcoin is becoming less attractive to developing countries.

yea many say bitcoin popularity in third world countries is on the increase. but thats just a few 'promoters' trying to introduce people to bitcoin. after the citizens start actually using it alot of third world countries start seeing the flaws and issues.. alot more than what first world countries see

 but the american devs just dont care about anything beyond their own nose

P.S im from a first world country but have travelled and promoted bitcoin and seen all the pros and cons, seen where it works and doesnt work. and end up shaking my head in despair that bitcoin devs are dismissing and ignoring the 'unbanked' due to ignorance and snobbery

1. it is a problem its basically making bitcoin out priced to be accessable and usable for third world countries.
but the american devs cannot see passed their noses and think that the fee's are acceptable because.. dare i say it, they have a nice share of a $70m-$95m investment paying their salaries. so they have lost grasp of the real world.

2. the 2mb was the compromise of late 2015 roundtable consensus agreement.. these days with the mempool at a constant 2-4mb (prior to october 2016 and higher after that) even 2mb is starting to not be enough.

i agree that the fee's are stupidly high but core have actually added a few fee war creating things that are pushing the fee's up not down.(average fee replaced reactive fee(no longer instantly drops at low demand), removal of priority, addition of fee filters, etc)

---

their solution.. LN offering OFFCHAIN payment which are only economically viable for people spending often and thus saving via spending many times inside an LN for micropennies fee, to counter the ONCHAIN fee of depositing(open channel) and withdrawing(close channel).
(your example $0.5770955200... means to use use LN costs ~$1.16(2x0.58)) but then if they make 10 transactions in LN for a penny each
total =$1.26 for 10 payments = equivalent/average of under 13cent a payment (in the dumb american economic mindset)

but here is the secret why they also dont care about the onchain fee. they need LN to work and be the thing that everyone is forced into. because they need to grab al those (non miner) ln micropenny fee's to start repaying their VC's for the $70m-$95m investment(debt).

hense why they have done these silly social poking the bear games and offering half ased empty gesture feature updates to keep people waiting.. wihle pushing fee's up to make LN seem more attractive..

the description of DYNAMIC BLOCKS i made in post #57 is the broader way of how nodes set limits and pools follow in regards to how consenus generally works for all of the different 'dynamic proposals'

BU(just one of many proposals) for instance has a little extra(which is about the Excessive block stuff). which would occur in step two of my broader description. which would as you say 'automate' to move the goal posts. thus if you have the right upper setting. will find that your node wont unsync and be left behind as much as you think

but like i said there is more then one 'limit' and also pools follow what nodes allow, not the other way round.

yes if your nodes upper limit is not that high then you have to check now and again that its still syncing.
but if your node has sufficient limits set and knowing that pools are not stupid to jump too high to fast (pools are smart to take small tolerable steps to avoid orphan drama as much as possible) you wont have to worry about checking often

an invalid block = blocks that doesnt meet the rules (your understanding of not meeting the parameters)
a rejected block can be valid(data/rule) but for propagation or longer chain or other reasons it just doesnt get accepted.

an orphan is just an umbrella term.

EG real world.
an orphan is a child thrown aside and detached from its parent.
it can be because the parent is killed off.
it can be because the parent no longer wants to be linked to the child (gave up for adoption)
it can be force away from parent (social services removed parental rights)

so in bitcoin the umbrella term orphan, just means thrown aside..
orphans happen alot
http://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

but explanations as to WHY, vary. all you can see is what other child replaced it as the preferred child

do your research. stop reading the 20 second reddit scripts. your getting obvious

read code
learn consensus
understand bitcoin
stop defending humans

1. jihan isnt the mining king that wil own bitcoin.. please research stats not social media
2. pools are not the boss never have or will be. they are the secretaries.. nodes are the bosses and devs need to be reminded that devs are just workers
3. implementations that are not blockstream are not the ones wanting to be kings.
4. its actually blockstream that gave ONLY pools the vote over segwit.. yet a hard consensus is about NODES st the rules pools follow

there are many solutions. you just dont hear about them due to the censorship and hoops you have to jump through just to get a core dev to even class it as a bip on "their" bip wall.

and the social media trolling drowning out other methods of promoting one because "its not been reviewed by the blockstream gods"

recently gmaxwell handed the Bip reins over to luke jr but gmaxwell still moderates the technical discussion boards of this forum and works along side theymos in the reddit forum. and also admins the mailing lists. and has co-horts moderating the IRC.

so goodluck to anyone not ass kissing blockstream for coming up with anything new that actually gets passed the blockstream wall, and into the communities general acceptance

you have in many posts said gold is stable and other things about gold and you comparing bitcoin to gold and even confusing golds commodity (as a raw material in the commodoty market) with the separate asset credentials of gold to assum bitcoine is a commodity too..

yet by you saying bitcoin is like gold, and gold is stable. and/or bitcoin should be more like gold
then gold should halt its ability to change how many transactions in a certain time period can occur.

golds tx/s has been changed, does change. will change
1940's only physical tx taking days to move.
1980's computer age. gold transactions move via computer transactions. and also physical gold coins. from banks pawnn brokers etc
millennium gold vending machines and even electronic stores.

yet you want to assume gold is a great store of value because its tx/s is stable and so bitcoins tx/s should be stable too...

seriously. your fixated too much on one little thing and not seeing the bigger picture. your narrative.. oops nashative to attempt to persuade the community that 1mb should be fixed is flawed.

we get you love nash. thats undeniable. but bitcoin is beyond nash. bitcoin is even beyond the concept of money. bitcoin is its own new revolutionary paradigm

---

in short.. limiting. fixing increase or decreasing will not stabilise "value" (of any sort) as there are many things that give bitcoin value. stopping one wont stabilise the rest

---

gold has changed. it was not used for solar panels 50 years ago(didnt exist) now it is
it was not used for GPU's now it is
it was not used for many things ... now it is

gold has changed and will change

because he wants to halt utility and dampen desire by limiting how many people can use it effectively... which leaves price as the main "value" umbrella left.

EG
if gold was halted at the point of only being used to make egyptian dog face masks. and only accessible through egyptian kings personal goldsmiths..
(no modern jewellery, no circuits, no gold vending machines at dubai hotels airports).. do you think people would care about gold today

hmmm lets change something




you yourself over use "value" but do not express which "value" you are talking about.
"value" is an umbrella term with multiple subcategories.

i only put the brackets to inform you which "value" you are trying to cause an end result of.
you want a stable price. but do not realise that halting utility wont cause a stable price

halting tx/s is already destabilising bitcoins value(utility/desire)
which cause and effect(chain reaction) destabilises bitcoins value(price)

this whole topic has not been about messing with 21m coin cap..
so lets not meander down that rabbit hole.

many things have given bitcoin its desire

sticking to development (your main gripe)
halting development wont stabilise the price because many other factors are interplaying bitcoins desire.

depends on what side of the fence you are

$1200 may have got you 200 bitcoins 5 years ago
1btc may have got you $6 bitcoins 5 years ago

both same thing. but dependant on what side of the fence you are on. are you a fiat lover or a bitcoin lover

what i was saying was the expanding or limiting of utility. is the control..
then because we are talking about bitcoin=deflation. its about control of deflation..


look at the commodities market.

you will see a coffee BEAN on the market. but you wont see the manufactured ground coffee end product sold in walmart on a commodity market.
you will see a pure gold on the market. but you wont see grannies necklace on a commodities market

grannies necklace asset value(price, desire, utility) is not going to be the same as the commodity value(PRICE)

2 things
1. bitcoin is not inflationary (to address your many earlier points that still gripe me)
2. bitcoin is not a commodity. its an asset.

a commodity is a raw material used to make other products
beef=hamburgers, steaks
oil=plastic, fuel
wheat=bread, animal feed
gold=jewellery/circuits

gold sits in 2 categories and on multiple markets. 1 being the commodity market (jewellery/circuitry). the other being asset market.

just because you see bitcoin as the similar principles of golds ASSET values. does not mean bitcoin also holds golds commodity value.

they are 2 separate categories.

---

you are also mixing up golds value(utility/desire) to fit whatever narrative you like.
golds value(price) is a culmination of desire(asset store of value) AND utility(commodity usefulness as jewelery and circults)

take away golds commodity utility.. and people only value(desire price) it as the equivalent of rust.

take away bitcoins ability to be spendable to pay rent once a week or groceries once a week. and you affect its utility and desire. making its store of value(price) deminish

the store of value(price) is only there if and only if there is desire and utility. (otherwise we would see all 1000 altcoins at $1200 if it was based on just 'existing')

if you take away utility. desire errodes. and then price errodes.. thus store of value(price) drops

if we simply turned bitcoin into... say... 42coin. that has fixed limit, scarce and no development.. and not used for buying coffee.. or anything for that matter.. bitcoins store of value(price) would be the same as 42coin.

---

increasing the tx/s is not about coffee its about progressively and naturally allowing more people to transact. even if its 2mill users using it 5times a month now .. to for instance 1 billion people IN 30 YEARS(not overnight, but natural dynamic progression over time) using it 5 times a month.

just for a weekly wage/grocery shop.

that will help desire grow and with more user adoption (not frequency of spending per person) the extra user adoption will actually help stableise the value(price)