changing everything so there is no mention of "bitcoin" either as protocol / network / currency = bad.

but the currency will eventually move down to something like 'bits' naturally via common conversation/ usage over time.
millies is just a temporary intermediary 'measure'. i dont see a reason to teach people to move from btc to milly and then later to bit over the next decade.

probably better to go from btc to bits,

much like not point going from tonnes of gold in ancient egypt to stone, kilograms pounds to ounces to grams.
instead tonnes to ounces to grams

no one is saying rebrand gold to "yellowmetal" or rebranding bitcoin to "hashcash"

but knowing how natural measures and terminology of currency vary in common conversation and utility.
i do see
eventually we will be talking about the currency measure as 'bits' eventually

and for logical common discussions of explaining things. maybe changing 'wallet' to 'keyring' has an advantage in analogy terms

meanwhile over 60% are smarter and on neither side. yet some troll want to throw anyone not kissing blockstreams ass.. into a BU camp

MEGA FAIL if bitcoin understanding.

time you learned
consensus.

also even without killing the parent.. a child can be a orphan just by being rejected. real world orphanages are not just places whre kids whos parents have died are placed. (learn real world logic)

you can play with buzzwords and rebrand things all you like. but to real people that look beyond the buzzword games of twisting the narative. the truth speaks for itself

having spoke to many banks and businesses and also from my own experiences helping businesses in the past. the problem is not "bitcoin" its startups not understanding the FIAT rules.
also a few cases are where chargeback scammers try to get their wire transfers reversed by pretending they are victims of scams.

this is not a 'banker attack on bitcoin' but a regulation and bank rules enforcement on fiat

in short if you want to run a business that accepts fiat. (for any purpose) know the terms and conditions of the account you are using (dont use personal account for business transactions)

hand over a business plan to the bank explaining how you will mitigate the 'chargeback scammer' risk.
hand over a business plan to the bank explaining how your 'funding' is not linked to crime
hand over a business plan to the bank explaining how you will audit your funding and identify possible threats

its more about these "exchanges" not declaring they are a business and not having a business bank account. because then they are required to show regulatory approval if they declare the business as a money business.. so most of the 'startups' try running large multidollar businesses using 'personal accounts'

this is not about banks. but fiat regulations. which starts at the government end.

if you want to touch fiat then expect to follow fiat rules.

now you know why bitcoin was invented. if you only hand bitcoin and not touch fiat your not in the jurisdiction of fiat rules.
double edge sword.

we already see blockstream rebranding things..

'its no longer blocksize, but blockweight'
'its no longer blockheight that matters but chainwork'
'its no longer satoshi-qt, but blockstream-core'

things i think that will NATURALLY change
is when people measure their holdings in 'bits' (100sats)

things that should change to avoid confusion
if we call a 'wallet' a 'keychain'/'keyring' (you know the thing in your pocket that holds your [door] keys together)

i think once 'bits' become common place people can understand the difference between
Bitcoin (consensus protocol network)
bitcoin (the currency)

i know people try to use 'btc' for the currency and bitcoin for the network. but some terminology should change either naturally through time due to laymen using it. or by us actively thinking about the words we use and the imagery it conjures up when talking commonly to people. to help make describing it less of a headache

less than 2 years ago, CB actually advocated for dynamic blocks.. then all a sudden his care of bitcoin diminished and he went to defending the blockstream "elitist developers"

there is no point arguing with CB or lauda. all they want to do is meander the topic away from technical debate
such as
segwit does not solve quadratic spam because malicious users will just use native keys to bypass it.
segwit does not solve malleability double spend scams because malicious users will just use native keys to bypass it.

but lauda and CB cant rebut the truth. so they will start the poking the bear of personal attacks and then raise a victim card when the attacks play back at them.

best to just laugh at their well know tricks and stick to the technicals. let them go silently into the background offering nothing to the topic.

so keeping to the topic.
segwit is not a solution and is not needed. thats why the majority of th pools are undecided or not advocating for segwit.
along with the fact that blockstream failed by thinking they could get it in just with a pool vote, without needing to have a bilateral split back door.

blockstream should just get a segwit tx into a block to prove the "backward compatibility" and safe non event they promise.
if they refuse they will never win confidence

hard fork does not mean automatic split and 2 chains co-exist forevr
soft fork does not mean automatic single chain and no issues

stop using umprella terms and thn using best case scenario of soft and worse case scenario of hard.

in short:
soft=only pools vote
hard=nodes and pools vote.

then there are sub categories of good or bad of each

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

if you want to talk about the ethereum style of for. that was a hard BILATERAL(intentional) split.

but also remember there is code in bip 9 to allow a soft bilateral(intentional) split too.

---

to answer your question about an intentional(bilateral) split.

yes if 2 chains persist what ever funds were on the key belonging to you prior to the split will be mirrored on both copies of the chain. so yes 5btc on chain A and 5btc on chain B.

as for the 'value' or 'usability' of each, is dependant on who recognises or uses which chain.
EG if no one uses chain B then you cant really 'spend' the B chain coins because no one accepts them.

have you read the whole network topology changes.
have you read the whitelisting/node filtering.

segwit is not about the temporary gesture. its about putting segwit nodes at the top of the network so they can control the network participants.

the 'benefits' to users are empty. its al about putting segwit-core nodes at the top of the control pyramid and ignore non segwit pools simply because they are not blockstream friendly. (even if the data is moral, ethical and containing valid native bitcoin accepting tx's)

---

if segwit is so 'backward compatible' then blockstream should just get BTCC to add a segwit tx to a block. and show that native nodes have no issues when its filtered around.

show that pools/nodes dont miscommunicate with each other.

worse case. they use $13k of their $90m. as a thank you to btcc for the test

guys your still arguing about just "activating" segwit..
but not accepting the hard truth

people wanting to malleate/quadratic sigop spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit solves nothing
people wanting to bloat spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit doesnt get its magical 2.1x predicted tx count boost

segwit has failed on its promised before even getting to be used. because its an empty promise/temporary gesture.. not a solution

the failure is that atleast 60% are UNDECIDED
the failure is that its been done as an A OR B. not an A AND B
the failure is that NODES have NOT formed a secure consensus so pools wont risk orphans pushing something that nodes wont validate to high %.

segwit fails because people can continue to use native keytypes AFTER activation. so malleation/quadratic sigop spamming still can happen. thus no fix.

the solution
NODES have BOTH (meaning core has dynamic block solution (but without cores stupid reward/fee penalty drawback(facepalm))
get node user acceptance, to give the undecided pools confidence that the network can handle what pools create.

again pools wont create a block that NODES cant handle so the solution is to involve the nodes

thats a laugh Lauda doesnt even know C++
he cant even read more than 6 paragraphs so obviously has not reviewed the code. nor reviewed the LONG explanations of risks.

i even linked him the link he linked and highlighted one paragraph and he fails to even read/understand it even when wrote by the kings he has devoted his fake mantra and lack of morals to.

if anything he is just a spell checker trying to show loyalty as an unpaid intern, hoping for a job.

lauda is not interested in bitcoin or protecting bitcoin. he exists to protect blockstream

liberty reserve was not shut down for making an alternate currency. liberty reserve was shut down for trying to emulate fiat, which is called counterfeiting.


liberty reserves model was completely different than bitcoin.

also liberty reserve was found actively running its system without having a money service licence even though it was handling 'fiat'. it failed the most basic concept of 'convertibility' (pegged to fiat).

in short if you have an altcoin that is pegged 1for1 to fiat.. that altcoin is then deemed equal to fiat and requires a money service licence.

if you have bitcoin not pegged to fiat and the value fluctuates and is used to swap with other things not fiat. then its not fiat. its just currency

---

separately. if found laundering money, whether its done by trading paintings in an auction house. trading gold. or even trading caviar, if your caught, your caught. the type of 'currency' used wont protect you

note the satire in the op's post.

moving on.
if the OP tries to keep on with the joke or tries to make it seem real. its worth reporting to mods to move it off topic before sheep media think its real

ETF's wont cause much of a change to bitcoin at first.

for one.
most ETF had pre-bought the coins months/years before getting the green light from regulators.
also ETF are not trading bitcoins. they are trading shares in a company of X btc in trust. thus the price of a share is not directly impacting
bitcoin. because it does not result in any actual bitcoins being bought/sold.

there may be ETF events when they make announcements that they have added new 'baskets' (much like share dilution events) where the supply
of shares alters within the company. but this again is not about a change in bitcoins.

ETF will be more reactive to bitcoin prices so an ETF will follow the real bitcoin price rather than the other way around.

what positives i can see:
people will see an ETF and want to hold real bitcoin. so after playing with ETF or using ETF's for their official regulated pension funds. traders would separately then go and buy bitcoin for their personal holdings unofficially(outside their pension/investment contract)

mentions of the word bitcoin ETF would solidify bitcoin as a good asset. so again if its good for a ETF. people will then move off and buy bitcoin directly from proper bitcoin exchanges.

but i do not see the ETF price movements causing the real bitcoin prices to manoeuvre.. i see the bitcoin price movements manoeuvre ETF's

... just my opinion

it can work. if what is offered to nodes is what node users really want.. rather than just a temporary gesture.

smart node users know the only way to see segwit benefits is to wait for activation and then download yet another implementation weeks after activation. and then move funds over to segwit keys (EG exchanges need to change all their customers deposit addresses and re-audit the holdings(headache))

smart node users know that malicious users wont use segwit keys, so the malicious users can still quadratic spam and malleate transactions after activation simply by not moving to segwit key types

smart pools wont vote unless there was node consensus to validate FULLY, so even if nodes dont get official vote privelidge, they should have got official vote privileges.
but again what the nodes would be given should be more than just a temporary/empty gesture.

thats where blockstream failed.. not realising the importance of nodes task in the network.
not realising that spammers will just use native keytypes and keep spamming

blockstream want it. they even let bip9 actively ignore opposing pools to reach 95% if they choose.

read between the lines of what the code is actually doing


and when active. segwit pools will still actively ignore non-segwit pools
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

these are straight from the horses mouth about defending and enforcing segwit.. not native nodes, not bitcoin consensus.

where blockstream failed is by not letting nodes have consensus first, to give pools confidence that the nodes can work with the pools.
instead blockstream dont care about native nodes as they have already set up the gatekeeper nodes (fibre ring network) to accept segwit pools and filter data down.

since last year lauda and CB have been backing each other up. while turning a discussion about code and technicals into a victim card where they try to play the victim of (their last years special word ad-hom)

they both lack any ability to read technical details and prefer to poke the bear with personal attacks and then play a victim card when personal attacks get hit back at them.
at most they just display images handpicked to present as their 'promotional material' and repeat scripts everyone has heard 100 times before by other blockstream interns

its the same boring script they try every time.

i have personally given them many oppertunities to learn about bitcoin and learn the community HATE blockstream..
CB and lauda are not defending bitcoin they are defending blockstream. but try to make out anyone hating blockstream as people attacking bitcoin.
which is another failure of understanding by them

they really need to stop protecting the corporate centralists and actually learn about bitcoin.
yes i already know they are desperate unpaid interns trying desperately hard to be centralist loyalists hoping to grab a few pennies of the corporate $90m investment.

but they need to wake up and care more about bitcoin and less about their own greedy needs that involve selling their morals.

its time they stop waving the victim card each day and start learning bitcoin.

bitcoin needs to be rid of blockstream and start thinking of diverse teams on an equal playing field of no control where only the NODES form the consensus followed by the pools forming consensus once they see nodes have consensus.

no dev-kings.. no need to be loyal to any dev, no need to get on your knees to devs.

nodes=managers
devs=employee's

not the other way round

1 reject lasting 2 seconds.. non drama
vs
sipa's 2013 long orphan chain lasting hours (leveldb 500k bug)

oh and need i list the many other rejects and orphans that occur often that are just as equal drama as the 1 reject. but occur alot and occur by core blocks.
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

atleast try to be factual about your opinion.

i would have said ages back that just taking blockstream out of the equation and going back to the old core and the other 12 implementations was acceptable playing field.

but blockstream have really got core wrapped around their fingers and now i just see the unpaid core devs as blockstream loyalists, hoping to get paid.. so i deem them unpaid blockstream interns now, definetly not independant open minded devs

pools know its not a "kick off the network if BU is adopted"

pools hold back on any changes if there isint already majority node acceptance.

pools dont care much about 'fee's as their income. for decades they see fee's as just a bonus. its the block reward that is their "income" they wont do crap that would hurt their "income"

60% of pools are undecided because even though nodes are not voting for segwit, pools know that nodes matter. so they are waiting for unofficial majority to mitigate orphan risk (this is not a split risk. just a single chain with orphans dropping off the side)