to blockersteam lovers

stop thinking "bitcoin 7billion users by midnight." "gigabytes by midnight"
both blockstream scripts have failed to spark about 2 years ago, so give up trying to use them...

natural growth takes time.
halting that natural progressive growth using fears of "X by midnight" is your own failing.

---

if you ever have kids i bet you would break the poor todlers legs before it can walk and then tell child protection agency your doing it because you fear it will run infront of a car when it gets older.

you would then try to seek society granting you permission that your child should be classed as disabled so you can then get a whelchair(ln) because its faster than walking and then claim SS benefits for being the carer..

you blockstreamers want to cripple bitcoin just to take advantage of the community for your own personal gain

really??
Other contact info:    XMR: 43pCtCRUn6nRdvmpqzoHJy4NwFsRrEqywhjwfbiUqTtqBAHxCNzdctbHZjf1AZKtTkAjgKmhYgkqBU9 T4BEfAgBqKwK21M7

partially paid.

investors are not bankers?
so the fiat money is just magically there from some basement dweller.. and not from some financial institution...pfft.. keep trying.

which are not part of bitcoin.
also you love to only circle yourself within a niche group of people that agree with you. you will only hear cheers and applauds towards you because you dont like to hear the negative. what you suffer from is called cabin fever
its like a little girl who thinks she really is a princess because she is only listening to her biased dad complement her. so she starts to wear the dresses and acts the part to please those who complement her.

because its the way your team have moved it. not the way the REAL community want it moved.
your buddy matt corallo changed the network topology (your words segwit node being upstream filter (hint: FIBRE)
your other buddy is making the commercial LN hub mechanism so you can repay your investors with all them fee's your looking forward to making in LN

the thing is those complimenting you have admitted they have not read the code or done much research.. their trust is in the "princess" not the actual code.
you sold them a sales pitch and not revealed the small print in a manner they can read

you also fail to be completely honest about segwit not being as promised.
it wont fix the issues at activation
it wont fix the issues purely by having 100% of pool using segwit nodes.
it wont fix the issues purely by having 100% of pool using segwit nodes.
it only fixes the issues IF(strong if) 100% p2wpkh/p2wsh key use.. which will never happen. malicious people will stick to using native transactions. meaning problem still exists

your funds are linked to private keys. which sounds like you have/want them funds spread out in different wallets

if those wallets are yours and you have the full control of the private keys.

then you can put the private keys into different wallets.

analogy
imagine it like you have your password for your online banking. and using it in internet explorer or firefox doesnt matter as long as you have the password used in each browser.

the term "hardfork" is over used and in the wrong context.

if your talking about 3 splits with 3 chains.
use the term bilateral splits..

same reason people want to hang around train stations and pickpocket fiat bank notes, or card clone debit cards at ATM's

if they can find a way to sucker value out of people without getting caught they will.
plus those people probably never have and never desire to get a real job in their life

my gripe is blockstream loves taking softfork best case scenario and hardfork worst case..
but blockstream will slap down anyone that even suggests an opinion of
softfork worst case scenario and hardfork best case..

even though people like cores/blockstreams main technical boss(CTO) will happily bilateral split the softfork.

i hate this because gmaxwell loves his monero and elements/liquid, aswell as his millions of fiat... not so much bitcoin. i feel gmaxwell doesnt care about bitcoins survival and has gone 'full wetard' into just treating bitcoin as 'an experiment' and testbed for things like hyperledger/elements.

yet people are following gmaxwell, because of old outdated stuff he done before he got into the bankers pockets and changed motives.
much like some people stick with the same doctor even if that doctor is now working for a profit making business rather than a national health service.

and allowing bitcoin to change due to human emotion of trust of another human. without bothering to just read what code was wrote and what the actual codes does to the network.

there is to much trust of human. and not much any care of reading understanding code or requsting the human to try a different type of code out of fear of being slapped by a human hand or offending a human.

segwit does not give 2mb or 4mb straight off the boat of activation.
segwit doesnt solve 100% malleability
segwit doesnt solve 100% quadratics

it wont solve it by having just 100% of pools using segwit
it wont solve it by having 100% of nodes using segwit.
the promises can only be achieved if 100% of funds are sent using segwit transactions..

which malicious people wont use segwit keys. meaning problem not solved, and tx count boost maximum expectation wont be achieved

within the first 15 minutes Johny of blockstream just ripped apart his own colleagues trust of lightning..(lol)
not verbatim 'because transactions are not on the blockchain confirmed you shouldnt trust them because pools can simply ignore them and not add them to a block'. making LN's close channel/settlement even in a blockstreamers eyes not trusted until its actually on the blockchain.
which as a blockstreamer knowing that things can be messed around with in the mempool (just ignored via malice and recent additions RBF, CPFP) he assumes its ok to not do anything to reduce the risk and thinks increasing the risk of tx's not confirming is ok

---

at an hour15min-1h 20min they were talking about mining.
firstly asic manufacturers sell gear so that they can use profits to sell more gear and also because profits give the manufacturer free gear. so there is profit in meaning asics. where by the blockstreamer suggested that mining chip manufacturing is not profitable with the lame excuse that manufacturers would refuse to sell gear if it was profitable to just internally mine with what they produce.

secondly the blockstreamer wanted to suggest that asic mining is centralised because there were only 4 manufacturers..

back in 2009-2011 it was either AMD or Intel
back in 2012-2013 it was either Ati or Intel

now its many more manufacturers..
bitmain
canaan creative
bitfury

and anyone can make an asic privately more easily than trying to make something comparable to the CPU/GPU requirement of 2009-2013
even the circuitry is out their in the open far more so than making a complicated CPU/GPU in 2009-2013
.
mining itself there are more POOLS now than 2012-14
those pools are not in just 20 physical locations. and the stratums are also distributed too
so mining is less centralised

---

as for blockstreamer johny. at 1:29:00-1:31:00 he actually argues that ethereum is very centralised because of proof-of-vitalik..


hmm sticking with that idea, but changing it slightly proof-of-gmaxwell!!!!
if only the question was asked to johny and any blockstreamer.
if gmaxwell moved over to BU and dropped core. how many blockstreamers would follow gmaxwell or stay with core.

as unbiased as possible

with BU
users still use native keypairs. the thing is when a hard consensus activates a bilateral split does NOT occur... also pools WONT jump straight to filling a block right to the top of the limit. they will try a block at 1.001mb first and see what the orphan risk is. and progress from there. it may take hours or months depending on safety/demand for it to actually hit the new limit.

so lets say there was issue with blocks over 1mb.. pools simply mine 0.999mb blocks again.. end of drama



with segwit
SW positions pools and segwit nodes as upstream filters and users need to move their funds over to segwit keys to actually be disarmed from the mallicious things that segwit meant to fix.
so lets say there was an issue with segwit. all the pools and nodes need to down grade back to native nodes and find a way to move funds back to native keys.

clarity

soft and hard is simply
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

---

segwit doesnt offer 4mb of real usable space for everyone.
segwit doesnt offer 4mb of real usable space instantly when activated
the only way to get to 4mb is to get EVERYONE over to using segwit keys that also have extra bloated future features appended to the end of the tx in the future. such as segwit+confidential payment codes..

emphasis. its not just about getting all pools to be segwit, its not just about all nodes being segwit. its about ALL TRANSACTIONS using segwit keypairs (moving funds from old style addresses). before the benefits can be seen in full

yep if 100% of users used segwit+confidential payment codes. then a segwit block will get a weight of 4mb
yep if 100% of users used segwit without extra features, then segwit bocks will get a weight of ~2mb
emphasis 100% of users using segwit are needed to see all the 'promises' of segwit to be achieved

but if people stay with native LEAN transactions (real data for data) you wont get as many transactions and wont have the bloat.
however
a hardfork consensus where the REAL block limit(not weight) is increased ALL transactions get extra room and more transaction flow

---

segwit has not solved attack vectors. its just disarmed innocent sheep

segwits 'features' which segwit has been over promising as fixes of mallicious things. can be bypassed very simply.. just use native transaction types. yep just not using a segwit key means that a person can still malleate and quadratic spam a block

also
although segwit nodes are programmed to be upstream of the network (centralised to the pools) to avoid an issue of segwit itself (anyonecanspend attack) a malicious user can MANUALLY copy an unconfirmed segwit transaction(from segwit) and paste it into an old node and mess with it... yep that is right. they can

---

as for "cores independance"
at 40 minutes the video talks about
blockstream (managed by gmaxwell)
chainlabs (managed by matt corallo)
lightning (managed by rusty russell)

investivate those names.. and they are all funded by the same party and contracted with the same party.
as for the other 100 'unpaid volunteers'. mainly spellcheckers. they are biased into working as unpaid interns hoping to get a blockstream / DCG job

---

danng!!
guy in purple admits at 55min-60min
he is not an expert, not a coder, doesnt know all the details, doesnt hold or spend much bitcoin. isnt much of a bitcoin user.
wow... they should have got someone better on then that guy

you can run both, on the same network

its not based on the entire network.
because all them small pools are adding hashpower 'to the network stats' but not solving blocks.

its more about the luck.
if you have more hashpower your going to get luckier because you are processing more hashes to actually find a result.

in short a block is not produced by combining all the hashpower of the network because each pool is separate.
the hashpower of the pool has more meaning than the hashpower of the network

EG
i could add 1 billion asics solo mining each. but never get a single block in a whole year.
even if them 1 billion asics are more than the network hashrate

all i would be doing is wasting electric

nope

its not fixed maths..
its LUCK

in short the large pools even with just 200peta or 101000peta will get the majority of blocks

wrong.

there could be 5000 pools with under 20 peta each
and then 5 pools with 200peta each

it does not mean that for every 50th block one of the 5000 pools will get a block.  - (where one small pool is a 50th of the large pools combined)
it does not even mean that over 5050 blocks every pool would have atleast 1 block   - (where hashrate of network is divided by blocks produced equally)

also small pools 100000 vs bigpools 1000 totalling 101000 does not mean that the majority of blocks are solved by the small pools (where small pools combined are 100x big pools(~99% of hashrate)

the truth is that the 5 large pools will get more lucky to solve the blocks and the small pools will be waiting near forever

26%
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
atleast use real numbers that actually matter. yep the link i posted is from the blockstreamer at the center of programming segwit. so you cant take it as being biased against segwit if its sourced by segwit dev.

otherwise if you are just gonna use hourly/daily numbers, you'll be endlessly posting 144 times a day, every time a single block changes the %

but if we were to use your silly graphic.. it shows 60% undecided either way.

(ill try to be unbiased as possible.. do not take my speaking about the issues as being biased. take it as being honest about the issues.)
i mentioned segwits faults as far back as last april.

the response about the anyonecanspend threat. was to NOT have segwit keys activated in the wallet section in any of the 0.13.x versions. and wont release a segwit wallet version until AFTER segwit activates as a further measure to prevent the anyonecanspend risks.

they also invented FIBRE as the 'upstream filters' of the network. basically making core the gatekeepers of the network.
this alone is centralizing the network to treat anything not segwit as second class that doesnt need to truly validate the network

these 2 things combined may prevent an attack now. but does not mitigate risks of attack in the future once segwit keys are publicly usable onchain. because malicious users will just grab a unconfirmed tx from a segwit node and then push it through a native node and native pool to mess with it.

yep a simple copy and paste from a new node to an old node makes it possible to mess with the transaction. even if segwit nodes have been designed to prevent relaying unconfirmed segwit tx's to old nodes. it doesnt stop someone manually doing it. or personally tweaking their segwit node to allow it through.. BIG RISK

---

the other things like all the 'fixes' are only attainable by users who use segwit keys. its not an instant permenent 100% for everyone as soon as segwit activates. it just in simple terms. disarms segwit key users.
again for emphasis. it only works for people who use segwit keys

but ofcourse malicious people wont use segwit keys so they wont be disarmed. so the problems are not fixed.

---

proper fixes are
1. real blocksize increase so that ALL keys native or new get more buffer space and more transaction flow.
2. a new priority formulae that actually punishes bloaters and respenders rather than just being a rich vs poor snobby formulae
3. tx sigop limits to actually prevent sigop spamming

another topic about hyperledger.. i think this forum needs a sub category along side altcoins for hyperledger chit chat. so we can move these topics to where they belong

and while people pretend to think they know bitcoin by talking about moores law.

they need to realise that hashing a block solution(mining) and block size are not linked.
no matter how big a block becomes.. its hash will always be a sha256. and a mining pool will hash the hash the same.

dont confuse the cost of hashing a single sha256 piece of data.. with the blocksize debate.
mining and block size are 2 different things.

also bitcoins blocksize does not require 100% utility of the top end CPU in existance to validate transactions/blocks.. so there is still lots of capability in block propagation/validation.(no where near the end of the limit of moores law)

yes a raspberry Pi 3 can handle 8mb blocks, even core devs agree but devs think 4mb is safer. even at consensus 2015 the compromise went down to 2mb just so that core devs and their sheep cant play that doomsday card.

but it seems the blockstream sheep are trying to pull that doomsday back to life without actually thinking about the reality.

a raspberry Pi 3 is far far less than a standard desktop PC. so block validation is not at its limit so block size should not be limited due it such fake doomsdays.

first of all

months ago many banks that made up the R3 consortium decided they didnt need r3 as a middleman and instead the banks decided to concentrate on being directly connected to HYPERLEDGER.

what remains of r3 are deciding they can run as a second layer service.. which again is part of the hyper ledger.

what they are saying is they are not going to have their own private blockchain.
but that does not mean they are going to be part of bitcoin.

they are going to be part of HYPERLEDGER directly or indirectly.

know thy enemy

the more nodes = delay in propagation. because it takes time between each node getting data to check it and move it on.
but
the more nodes = more copies of the blockchain. so if something bad happens in one locality there are many copies in other localities that no one cares what happens in small area's

more nodes is not about propogation efficiency but about diversity and reducing risk of targetting limited numbers of data holders