fixed that for you

now lets see who actually wants to split the network and thought ethereums intentional split was a good thing


its core that love altcoins... yea they call them "sidechains" but wash away the buzzwords and the truth is revealed.

its the MANY non-core dev teams that want to keep the network together. as one by asking for real consensus. which core have bypassed, avoided and dismissed the notion of, and back-tracked away from agreeing to

.. edit
sudden silence and pereira4 goes offline.
i guess his propaganda script of bait and switch failed and he cant rebut the truth.

cellard
atleast learn the difference between consensus and a split.

hard and soft just mean
soft: only pools vote
hard: nodes then pools

as for the types of 'fork'.. even soft can lead to a split. yep its part of bip 9.. bip 9 can cause a split too by biasedly AVOIDING native nodes making blocks, purely because they are native blocks.

ethereum was not consensus. ethereum was a bilateral split. learn and research it, please

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

when reading hard fork or soft fork. do not automatically assume best case for soft, worst case for hard. as thats just propaganda.

and the smart community want CONSENSUS not bilateral

bitcoin should be a voluntary second option outside of U.S legal tender laws.

let fiat burn in hyperinflation but dont make bitcoin be the government taxation tool after that.
let them keep asking for worthless fiat(or hyperledger coin thereafter). while bitcoin stays out of the jurisdiction of U.S legal tender.

that way bitcoin doesnt get limited by bureaucracy or stolen from you simply for parking tickets or other fiat grabbing reasons.

keep it free from governments grasps

dont bother with the signature campaigns. its like being told to walk the streets looking for pennies people throw on the ground

instead sell your skills to other bitcoin businesses. show them some work you have already designed.
ask for sponsorship.

EG find an issue with someones website and give them some code to fix the issue. (could be as simple as a design/layout tweak) or an update to their logo.

get to know who is involved in the bitcoin world and get some work, either freelance or contract. gain some experience seeing how businesses work and that will also help you develop your own business.

penny pinching from sig spamming may get you a few pennies but teaches you nothing about business or things you need to know

wrong
soft = changing the rules without nodes consent. only using pools consent... can cause bilateral split
hard = changing the rules with nodes consent, then using pools consent...  can cause bilateral split

soft consensus = pool agreement at high percentage.. small orphan risk.. one chain after drama
soft controversial = pool agreement at low/mid percentage.. medium/large orphan risk.. one chain after drama
soft bilateral = pool ignores opposing pools.. multiple chain co-existing and not fighting

hard consensus = node AND pool agreement at high percentage.. small orphan risk.. one chain after drama
hard controversial = node AND pool agreement at low/mid percentage.. medium/large orphan risk.. one chain after drama
hard bilateral = node AND pool ignores opposing pools.. multiple chain co-existing and not fighting

the calculator is meaningless. its not based on any statistics or anything. its just
=((x-y)*0.618)+y

the 0.618 is just the 'golden ratio' or fibbonacci curve. but that has no relation to how economics works

=((x-y)*0.618)+y

there you go

there is no rational reason for the calculator. the numbers are meaningless and the equation is meaningless
im pretty sure the OP will change the equation soon and make it another silly equation without merit

its coming up to valentines day.

and instead of offering a flower/chocolate service.. the OP decides that revenge is sweeter.. hmm
ops childhood could not have been very positive

yep thats my thought.
him thinking if everyone adopts it then no one will notice the blacklisting.

Eg if 95% of pools go for segwit no one will notice the 5% no longer winning blocks (because they are automatically ignored/rejected)

afterall with a few rejects/orphans each week(natural occurrence) how many people actually check to see why they get rejected/orphaned. usually its a 2 second decision of 'invalid, throw aside and forget'
and who actually notices which pools just stop mining over night and not produce blocks.

i guarantee you gmaxwell has already wrote the scripts to pass out to sheep to explain why segwit auto bans native pools making blocks
im guessing its ' dont worry they are opposers trying to force a split'..

even though its segwit doing the ignoring and splitting.. not the other way round

core have already set up the ring fense around the pools to 'validate and filter' blocks (the Fibre network) so core are starting to not care about native/non-core nodes.. they just think the sheep will follow and no one will notice. or if they do notice, it would be too late as nodes cant do nothing to defend against it.

---

last point maxwell fails to honestly explain is that the benefits of segwit (linear sigops and tx count boost) only occur if malicious people cant make native transaction types. where everyone has to make p2wpkh tx's (which he knows not everyone will)

he cant explain his way out of people who use native tx types (p2pkh NOT p2wpkh) will still spam the network meaning segwit wont fix the things it promises to fix

lol gmaxwell we both know that you are the one that wants a network split.
the majority want true consensus (nodes first, pools second) .. its why pools are holding back from signaling for segwit. they wont make blocks unless the majority of nodes can accept and fully validate segwit.

your segwit nodes have already been highlighted as being (YOUR WORDS) 'upstream filters', where they whitelist downstream nodes and ignore blocks made by old nodes

you can try stroking sheep all you want. but people can read passed your half answers and word twisting

you say
you know why, i know why and so do smart people. but it is such a shame your not big enough guy to explain it to your own sheep with honesty.

maxwell.. here is a mindblowing experiment for you
make a segwit transactions and get BTCC to mine the transaction into a segwit block.
prove to the network and everyone how 'backward compatible segwit blocks are'.

go on, dare you
afterall its all utopia and nothing can go wrong..hmmm
(note: sarcasm in last sentence)
if you want node confidence and pool confidence.. do it.

lauda you dont understand.

i checked post history and as far back as last april i told you about the bug.. and still you have not even bothered to learn a damn thing


i told you this last year!!!

and its why blockstream want to not fix the bug, but to split the network after activation(to stop old nodes from messing with anyoncanspend) and why they have propped up their nodes as the gate keepers of pools(FIBRE - upstream filters) and going to cut off any pools that make blocks using 'old nodes'

wake up. read something. learn something. even try extra hard to read the very links you provide yourself

you have had your head in the sand since april last year and still dont accept the truth even when core themselves wrote it in the very link you provided to this topic.

yep 8mb is safe for "raspberry Pi" based min specs.
where a 32mb was a old benchtest (normal pc) done years ago where dataloss 'could' start to occur. (protocol limit (above consensus limit(above policy limit)))

this is where the debates began in 2015 where random numbers started coming up, like 32mb 16mb 8mb 2mb.
late 2015 2mb was the ultimate compromise, just to try and get the ball rolling.. but the blockstream paid devs even back tracked on that ultimate compromise

i think what is needed is
protocol limit 32mb. hard coded(reviewed every 4 years as technology grows)
consensus limit 8mb. soft coded. can be adjusted by nodes, to show what they can cope with(maybe have a speed test algo to autoset upper limit)
preference limit start 2mb. which reacts DYNAMICALLY to what the nodes can cope with and supply/demand

we should not be thinking of hard coding 2mb, because we are just being spoon fed by devs and needing to debate for years before dev kings decide.

it needs to be the nodes that decide because the nodes are paramount not devs

your reading a script
think logically

litecoin has extensive testing and peer review. right!
does that mean we should throw litecoin keypairs into bitcoin and then block nodes that dont understand these new keypairs that enter the bitcoin code.
... no

until you see a segwit keypair being used within the bitcoin main net. you know nothing.
research this
“anyone can spend”

please spend time reading it.

here use the link that YOU provided but failed to read passd the 6th paragraph
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

use the browsers 'find' function for “anyone can spend”

and you will see why segwit nodes are setting themselves up as the gate keepers (upstream filters) and only whitelisting native nodes as downstream nodes(if they white list at all)

if native bitcoin nodes made a block.. its treated as an attack on segwit. even if the block is valid.

its not propaganda if its something YOU provided but YOU fail to understand.

research. read. learn. understand.
fail to, just leads to your opinion on things you dont know, being meaningless.

---

also thanks to _hv
https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4#.k125iopmo

DCG
has ownership stake in
coinbase, btcc, bitpay, blockstream, and many dozens of bitcoin entities..
they concluded that they are on the fense because they are waiting..
they state that only the core devs have been playing around with segwit on testnet not independently reviewed by all the different independent nodes/community

---

lastly. it was me. before segwit even got tested on the testnets i stated that there was a bug in segwit.
yep back as far as april last year i have highlighted the issue.
and it was me that caused devs to rethink their strategy and lead to them realising that segwit is not 'backward compatible'

but instead of them fixing this. they decided that after activation. they would bilateral split the network so that native bitcoin nodes cant attack this bug because they are thrown into an altcoin, or downgraded into not being a upstream node or allowed to even make a block in the network.
(facepalm)

the notion came from the naive understanding and sheep whispering of theories.

the REAL NEWS is that national banks can and should only be handling FIAT (legal tender of that nation).
the real news is that while saying to national banks that they should continue to only handle fit and are banned from handing non-fiat.

stupid naive people could not understand the difference between the national banks vs private/commercial banks vs citizens.

so these naive people thought citizens were banned.

again all it is stating is that banks should remain handling fiat (legal tender) and leave it for other financial institutions (investment/commercial banks, etc) can offer stocks shares, assets, commodities, foreign exchange etc

lauda do you think that dynamic blocksizes are untested?

ok here is somenews for you

2009-2016

there was the 1mb rule right.
but did you know that pools had a variable which until recently was set at or below 0.75mb

yep even though the consensus rule was 1mb.. the pools had a dynamic variable below that which incremented over the years

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h

in older versions it was called MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN
which in version 0.7 (which sipa screwed up when he tweaked 0.8 ) the
(0.5mb)
pools now have this setting set to 0.999mb but this 'policy' was infact dynamic.

even now the devs can happily play with the setting all they like blow the upper limit..

EG in 2013, there was a bug caused by Sipa.
they had a choice either
keep blocks below a 'policy'(MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2;) of 0.5mb and fix the issue later meaning todays 'we need more' drama would have happened in 2013 and devs screaming doomsday if blocks went passed a 0.5mb policy limit. (even with the 1mb consensus limit)
or
they looked at the cause of the orphans risks, and then allowed blocks to grow beyond it.

guess what happened.. (hint: we are not at 0.5mb after 2013 event)

yep thats right from 2009-2016 we had a large upper limit and then a dynamic limit below it.

the problem now is the dynamic limit is at the upper limit. so the upper limit needs to be moved.

lol wake up. your sleeping.
im guessing blockstream tucked you into bed and read you a fairy tale.
telling you to count the miner until you fall asleep instead of thinking of the boogey men under your blockstream bed.

care to try reading before bed. and not jump into bed with anyone that only wants to grab your wallet.

here is some tips for your research
1. if segwit activates. segwit nodes will BAN non segwit pools AUTOMATICALLY. thus causing a soft bilateral split.
2. even if segwit activates. all of them "fixes" wont be used by the malicious users that are causing the issues. malleation, quadratic spam etc will still occur.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/
yep segwit nodes will bilateral split the network and prefer to talk to only thier own kind.. (native bitcoincoin nodes and pools are thrown aside)

3. the transaction boost is not automatic. its dependant on how many use segwit keys. dont expect 100% utility

for me i only consider something spam if its moving funds every block or two.

even a shop-o-holic cant spend money that quickly

you can cry all you like that 23% for A and 5% for B.. but ultimately..
theres 60% of the community not involved in the bandcamp debate.


dont keep trolling that its a king vs king.

we need diverse decentralised NODE consensus.
wake up to who is really sabotaging node consensus and creating the splits. and wake up to who is behind their decision to go soft and bypass node consensus.

relax its all fine.
i understand rawdogs sense of humour. he is just having a laugh