but when was bitcoin bitcoin

2009.
2013 pre sipa leveldb bug
2013 post sipa level db bug
2014 migration from satoshi-qt to core
2014 buyout of the main devs into blockstream and pushing other devs out of core

why is today out of 8 years.. the day that bitcoin is bitcoin and should remain in the exact form it is today without any other changes for the next couple centuries.

what is significant about this week that is getting the OP and others such as yourself so hopped up and endlessly ranting that bitcoin should stop all development right now

LN can work without segwit. segwit it doesnt lay out foundations for scaling.
(segwit is just 'sold' as a needed thing as a way to tempt people to push it, they are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for any small excuse they can to undersell its limitations and oversell its half promises. while pretending it also does things it cant do. but people have run scenarios and seen it never meets expectations)

secondly you cannot segwit a segwit

thirdly it does not stop native key functionality. so it doesnt fix problems. infact it introduces new problems.

please spend  abit of time reading beyond the 'elevator speach' of segwit. and read the code or read the full documentation. and dont let ur eyes glaze over the issues. be concerned about the issues. in short. read the small print

1. segwit DOES NOT FIX THE ISSUES
it only disarms people who voluntarily use segwit keys... its like having a gun problem and then only taking the guns away from those who voluntarily walk into a police station and hand their guns in..

2. a hard consensus was on the cards. mentioned in 2015 that by summer 2017 the hard consensus will be rolling.. but blockstream paid coders backtracked their commitment early 2016 breaking the roundtable commitment. plus segwit doesnt solve the issues it promises. segwit is an empty gesture. not a 100% promise

3. 2016 has been a waste of a year for a feature that wont meet expectations.

1. X pools vote for segwit X vote for BU........... but 60% are undecided either way

2. pools are not the boss. they are secretaries.. NODES are the boss.. and devs are just employees. if pools do something nodes dont like. into the orphan trashcan(metaphorically) goes the secretaries work

3. its blockstream that want to halt onchain natural growth with their empty gesture of broken promise. purely to get their nodes as upstream filters and centralise the network so they cn control what transactions get to and from the pools.

4. its blockstream that have done the fee war tweaks to the code to try to push it further and get people to cry out for the need of LN, purely so they can grab fee's to repay their VC. blockstream are in DEBT to a tune of $70-90mill.. they are getting desparate to make income to make investor returns.


yep its just relaunching the pool marathon again


you mention the VISA-tier blah.... seriously. your talking as if its a visa by midnight doomsday.
be rational we wont get a billion users over night. think logically and rationally about NATURAL growth. and ofcourse dont use the growth as a foolish reason to be against growth. as thats illogical
(illogic: dont grow blockchain because blockchain needs to grow)
(illogic: lets go back to 1996 and tell activision to not work on project: call of duty, because COD:MW needs 60gb but 1996 hard drives are 4gb)

and could be introduced as part of a proper hard consensus

as shown by gmaxwell and his flock of merry men

but to get that. satoshi would need to be involved..
he left.

so taking someone out of the project doesnt magically make who they take out suddenly be brainwashed into changing anything.. coz they are out.
however those IN can be brainwashed

schnorr is something else.
schnorr could be added as part of a proper organised hard CONSENSUS event. again schnorr isnt dependant on and only implementaable due to the soft segwit event.

imagine this

alice makes a tx.. and malleates it..
bob looks at alices signature and see's something doesnt look right compared to what bob is signing. .. bob doesnt sign
thus transaction cant be added to a block and alice cant do anything.
LN works without segwit, due to mutually assured destruction. funds cannot move unless both agree not to cause issues. if one causes issues it destroys their own effort because the other side recognises the attack.

---

yes segwit is another way and solves things in a different way. but its just not needed. people can make safe LN contracts right now
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that are not needed.
this whole segwit debate is over selling features that do not fix the network and only disarm those that use segwit keys (not those using native keys). meaning the problems inside the network/blocks will still occur because malicious people will just use native keys and continue doing their malicious stuff

all segwit will permanently cause is that segwit nodes being UPSTREAM filter nodes, selectively filtering down what it desires to non blockstream nodes. in essence centralised gatekeepers of the network.
(hint: FIBRE)

typical "gigabyts by midnight" scare story..

be rational
NATURAL GROWTH OVER YEARS/DECADES where nodes announce what they are capable of and pools only make blocks to what nodes can cope with. other wise nodes simply orphan the block thats too excessive...
over time nodes will cope with more because technology moves forward. growing naturally without the stupid "servers by midnight" fake doomsdays

we are not in the days of computers having a 4gb max hard drive (1990's) or internet being 56k... things have moved on.
and will move on.

by the time we get to "visa populous" (by the way we wont get visa populous by midnight, it takes time for user adoption) tech will grow.

EG
rasperry Pi3 and current bitcoin efficiency gains allow a raspberry pi3 to handle 20-50x more bitcoin capability than older stats of older tch worries in 2012.

inshort even CORE.. yes your kings know that bitcoin is 8mb safe. but are happy with 4mb bloat.
the issue is core dont want to expand the REAL native block of 1mb NOT because it then risks data loss,  network issues.. but risks the desire of using a LN hub for blockstream to get some cash back in from fee's to repay their VC's.

PS LN has a niche, for certain user types, and should exist as a VOLUNTARY side service for those niches. but should not be seen as the sole solution to scaling. because LN has limitations and issues which not everyone will need to use LN for.

LN is just a 2-in 2out tx
segwit isnt needed because malleability can be sorted simply by 'bob' not signing if 'alice' malleated. and alice wont sign if bob malleated

and they then wont sign the same tx again unmalleated where funds end up elsewhere.
in short malleation is removed simply by needing a second pair of eyes looking at a tx before signing.. which is a fundemental feature of LN. thus malleation is solved just by being done through a multisig

netflix is your answer

the issue with bitcoin and these adhoc tv boxes is that it becomes harder to validate the bitcoin address is linked to a service that will pay the source without things getting centralised and organised.

yes 'universal studios' could publish a public key and people can make a payment that is X to the addon Y to universal studios. whereby the show/movie only streams if it sees the 2 outputs. but due to the open source nature of these tx boxes and addons.. they can be hacked

it would require a central 'manager' to API out a activation key to allow a stream to roll and a mechanism to prevent it without such recognised payment

unbiased clarity


NO IT DOES NOT
when segwit 'activates' NOTHING scalable changes..
WEEKS after activation a new release is made public that includes segwit key wallets.
scaling then ONLY OCCURS IF people move funds to segwit keys and then move funds between segwit keys.

meaning if 1% of users use segwit keys expect only a maximum "BUMP" of 1.01mb
meaning if 100% of users use segwit keys expect only a maximum "BUMP" of ~2.1mb

do not expect 100% segwit key utility. and dont expect it to happen instantly at activation


lightning network can aggregate transactions and help. but again there are users that dont need, want and wont use LN. so dont expect LN or schnorr to be the cure.

also dont confuse lightning with segwit. they are 2 different things. lightning does NOT need segwit.

mimblewimble as a sidechain via LN service great. but not as a bitcoin mainnet onchain feature where it has control of EVERYONES privky to move their TX and mix the funds together onchain.. think long and hard about that risk of a mimble manager just grabbing your unspent to mix without your consent!!!
mimble should be offchain to be used by those that volunteer to hand their funds across to a mimble manager.

segwit doesnt disarm the network. it just disarms users who voluntarily choose to use segwit keys
meaning malicious people will continue using native keys and still sigop quadratic spamming and bloat spamming and malleating tx's
segwit does not fix the things it promises. its not needed and was 'oversold' 'over promised' and under delivers

what would they gain.

the code is public.

its like trying to stop a train by getting rid of a VIP passenger.. the train still continues

so is carlton banks post.. but i guess he gets away with it by kissing ass

anyway this topic seems to have gone on and on and on about how much the op loves Nash..
even the OP who weeks ago was assuming nash was satoshi and bitcoin was ideal money has changed his mind to say its not ideal money and cant be.

the conclusion i came to is bitcoin is not 'ideal money' never can be ideal money.
its not a banana either, so w dont need 15+pages talking about banana's


but not being ideal money is not bad. bitcoin is a new paradigm

bitcoin DOES need further development. and using this 'nashes ideal money' as a lame excuse to halt development is just an attempt to keep things the same as the 1950's understanding of "money" rather than reaching forward and reinventing something new.

bitcoin is not intented to just be the same as what bankers want. its suppose to be new and revolutionary.

---

simple ONTOPIC question about the OP's possible future conclusion to this topic.

if bitcoin was to 'do a nash' and stop development.
at what point did the OP think bitcoin should have stopped development.. 2009?
2013 pre sipa leveldb bog
2013 post sipa leveldb bug
2016 pre segwit
2017 - post segwit or post dynamic
2018 - post confidential payment codes

when should bitcoin just live as bitcoin as a finalised unchanging system of fixed unalterable policy

at what point does the OP think that bitcoin should stop changing to fit his narrative.. oops nashative

^ the real poke the bear topic derailer appears
1. if the combined data totals 1mb weight it requires no soft or hard fork. because (sarcasm) "segwit backward compatible" so segwit transactions can start being added to blocks today (end of sarcasm) we know theres more hidden issues than blockstream want to admit about backward compatibility
2. people are getting wise to the buzzword of the year 'conservative' .. nice poking the bear using it

now seriously
3. with a 250kb base block native nodes will only have 250kb blocks
4. with a 250kb base block if 100% used segwit keys... segwit nodes will only produce ~525kb of tx data+witness blocks. leaving 475k blank for future bloat features to append data after tx.
5. thats not scaling up tx data, thats not even doing anything practical
6. all its doing is enforcing blockstream nodes as the upstream gatekeepers of the network filtering data out
7. dont expect 250kb native blocks (~600tx) to turn into ~1200segwit tx.. because not everyone will use segwit keys.

as long as 1A5BWtGqCYDP25h44ZCv2SjLpPMgb5FUPP is the address for coinbase. your fine.

it may be that coinbase only does a check once every hour to reduce its bandwidth usage. the funds are where it suppose to be. but coinbase just needs to update its separate database (your coinbase app account balance) once they have checked.

worse cas if confirms get into double digits.. file a support ticket with coinbase. paste them The block chain transaction ID  6da5499fc14a67c2f377a23906e30a85b4a3858a489e3592fa0d60d8d2bc5b95

and kindly ask them to update your balance

yep sipa caused that. he doesnt want anything to do with another one. it would hurt his C.V (employment resume) when he wants to eventually moves on with his life if he was somehow linked to another event of orphan drama caused by his code.


1. with a block holding only an average 2500tx.. guess what.. with 6000 nodes each block will end up wasting (~0.2mb in outputs only)blockspace just to pay 6000 nodes.
2. with FIBRE ring-fensed around the pools only blockstreams FIBRE nodes will get the pay out(if there was one). so dont expect all nodes to get paid. and dont expect it to 'help scalability.
3. paying nodes will just end up with one player doing a sybil attack with 10000 nodes (imagine a node pool) so that he gets 10000 chunks of the node incentive pie.
4. stop crying about node ability to run. dont be passed scripts of gigabytes by midnight. think rationally. by nodes saying they can only cope with 2mb-8mb a pool will see the overall consensus and not go to the extremes.. the pools will stay in node tolerance zone. otherwise what happens is that nodes orphan that pools attempt. making pools waste time for nothing. so pools already know not to push boundaries unless nodes allow it.
5. emphasising point 4. NODES control what is allowed. imagin it as nodes are the managers. pools are just the secretary and devs are just the employees

a ponzi is where you hand funds over. and those funds are just used to pay off the middle mans other debtors. where you are left with nothing.
basically hand over X with promises of X+0.X return. but wher X pays out to others as their 0.X return.

totally different game theory to cryptocurrencies

---

crap coins are you buying an 'asset' with the knowledge/naivity that the asset may go up or down in value.
if it goes down and becomes worthless. you might aswell have bought a bag of dogs mess..(hence crapcoin)

unless a coin has REAL utility its a crapcoin. and its 'value' is short lived with a pump and dump.
some try to rinse and repeat empty promises of FUTURE POSSIBLE uses.. but unless it has ACTUAL REAL USE NOW. treat it as a pump and dump crap coin.

if a crapcoins 'utility' is just a peg to another coin. but that second coin has no REAL WORLD UTILITY. then defacto the first coin is just as crap.

---

EG
bitcoin is great example of how real utility gave real value. it was released in january 2009. but did not actually get any "value" until 2010 when it obtained REAL UTILITY (bitcoin pizza / alpaca socks) and its VALUE increased due to REAL UTILITY (silkroad then more legit merchants).

in short if a coin just mentions future 'possibilities' your playing 100% speculation (pump and dump).

look for where it has REAL AND ACTUAL USE and follow the real and actual utility growth to know of its 'value' and longevity

you have spend 14 pages trying to tell people that bitcoin is not ideal money..

ok bitcoin is not nashes "ideal money".. no disaster..
best rebuttal.. bitcoin is not a banana either.. (widen your scope and think outside of the box to know what i am getting at)

bitcoin is not meant to be for the banks to adopt. bitcoin is a new paradigm AWAY from the greed of bankers.

bitcoin doesnt need to be government controlled ideal money. it works as an open and natural digital asset currency

bitcoins value(price) stability is not related to bitcoins value(utility) needing to be halted.
even if we halted all value(utility).. the value(price) will still be unstable due to it being new. and so far used by less than 1%, which makes it volatile by a small number of users

by developing bitcoin adding value(utility) you will see value(desire) increase and adoption increase and then with more people the value(price) will stabilise

there is a stability S curve and at the moment bitcoin is still at the beginning. and has a long way to go mainstream to reach the peak where things get stable.

halting development does not = stability