the only people shouting ridiculous size factors are people like CB and his blockstream defender buddies. to scare people into thinking that blocksize increases lead to "gigabytes by midnight"

natural consensus blocksize growth, is done WHEN NODES CAN HANDLE IT. meaning it wont outscale nodes ability to handle it. because it will be the nodes themselves that would be saying yes please or no thankyou.

not the pools
not the devs
not the fudsters that prefer lite wallets

actually its segwit that twisted things to sound fluffy and glossy and as if they are promising perfection.

i have untwisted their pseudo bullet points  of pseudo changes and put them into real world concepts

its a shame you cant understand this part


please research beyond the glossy images handed to you.
it seems you are no further forward in your knowledge than this time last year
i remember to throwing images up last year which just had no actual detail in them either, but you were trying your hardest to say everything
was utopia because you were posting an image.

again take your defence cap off. and put on your logical critical thinking cap.
dont turn this into a victimcard game. actually research, think and learn.

look at lauda with his glossy images that promote but do not explain..
look at lauda with his glossy images thinking all he needs to do is show an image as if thats proof

lauda please learn. i do not mean this as anything negative but please learn. it will help you.
your promoting something you dont understand, which is not only a failure to yourself. but a failure to anyone looking at your posts.

segwit does not fix malleability.
because malicious users wanting to malleate simply wont use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys even after segwit activates. so malleation will happen

it does not double the effective blocks
it allows users to use a new type of key (p2wpkh/p2wsh) which IF 100% use those keys then the maximum possible is effectively double.
emphasis segwit itself does not double the blocksize.. the utility % of the new key type COULD AT MOST allow double.
dont expect 100% key utility.
if 10% of users use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys expect only 10% or less change

remember pools add transactions dependant on fee's. if segwit offers discount then pools will accept NON-segwit keytypes more so then segwit keys. so spammers will bloat up the blockspace (hense less than 10% change if 10% utilise segwit keys, because they havnt paid enough)

in short ask yourself the blunt question.
will spammers and scammers use a keytype thats stops them being spammers/scammer. no. so they simple wont use the keytype. thus problem is not solved. its that simple.

i stuck to 6 paragraphs, i think lauda has trouble reading english, or his translator breaks at 10 paragraphs

easy way to achieve this, is to have a 'speed test mechanism' built into an implementation.

knowing in the code you can see the time your node asks for a new block. and when it validates the block it knows the time of that.
so it can use these two milestones to set a 'score'.
EG
if a block can be requested and validated in under say 120seconds. (2minutes) where over say 2016 blocks= target 241920score.
if the node can get a score BELOW(meaning faster than) 241920 over a 2016 block period. then it can easily handle block validation

this score can be part of the nodes user agent/metadata. thus easy to get stats of the network. to see what is capable by the nodes

meuh:  1   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   1459 (31.4%) ??
not sure where your measuring the under 1500 as being over 30%..

your numbers are so fake that if you do the maths:
divide 1459 by 31.4 then multiply by 100.. 4646
divide 1410 by 30.3 then multiply by 100.. 4653

it wont get the same total infact theres a 100% differential of 6 nodes lost just on bad percentages

oh wait you have cut away some none core nodes from the total count to give FAKE % and still couldn't calculate right so had to tweak the % a bit more aswell.. so much fail

now thats funny

 its better to show the more fairer network of 5884 nodes right now..
not your dwarfed quasi 4650 average nodes which you think there are.

here:
1   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   1485 (25.24%) 5884
2   /Satoshi:0.13.1/   1428 (24.27%) 5884

wait.. if i cut out core devs i could play around and show any percentage i like..
but instead ill just leave the number as is, copied and pasted directly from bitnodes.io at the time of writing this.. without edits

hint: atleast be honest if your going to show stats

try to use the terms properly.

those wanting dynamic blocks are - "onchain scalers"
those wanting segwit are - "centralist temporal gestures"

after all
the community that want REAL onchain scaling compromised to 2mb for ~5000tx..
while the "centralistic temporal gesturers" want to temporarily give an empty gesture of possible 2.1mb for a possible ~<4500tx. but then later bloat up the same <4500tx count to 4mb without offering more tx.
(confidential payment codes turns a standard tx into something thats 1kb bigger)

EG
"onchain scalers" 2mb=~5000tx (from ~2500tx)

"centralist temporal gestures" 2.1mb=~<4500tx (from ~2500tx)..
then later 4mb for the same ~<4500tx (once they add other features to the tailend of serialised tx data.

emphasising the misunderstanding of 'bigblockers'
2 vs 4. makes "centralistic temporal gesturers" the big blockers. because they want to fill blocks with nonsense features. not lean tx's in their empty gesture of 4mb

again 2 vs 4. which is bigger.

thing is that hashcash was inspired by
S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta

and also satoshi quoted
S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta

so, that makes adam back even more meaningless part of bitcoin, bcause most of the inspiration was from
S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta not adam back

we needs MANY teams, not just 2.
we need these teams to communicate together and find consensus. not shout scare stories where cores unpaid blockstream interns shout to other teams to split off. while playing the victim card 'that other teams might split off' (facepalm)

we need to stop gmaxwell from being the moderator of the technical discussions, irc, mailinglist and githubs. and be more open. less controlled.

otherwise we end up with the empty argument of. 'if core doesnt code something, it means no one can have it. so by not having the code available means they see no one using it.. which they then say no one needs it or desires it, because there is no stats of utility' which has been a self fulfilling prophecy mindset those fools have had for a couple years.

much like dont offer oliver twist a bowl of food and he wont ask for another. thus they think they have cured starvation, by not feeding the poor

this can only be done if people start caring about BITCOIN. and not the CEO of the banker funded company blockstream and his CTO business partner

mail order is possible.
afterall how do you think silk road become a success..
(though i detest dark markets)

a business accepting bitcoin can mail out products that evening knowing a couple hours have passed to cover any confirm delay.
mailorder businesses have more utility than say 'ingame purchases' because mail order is not 'instant receipt' required

there are many businesses that allow people to spend using bitcoin. last count hundreds of thousands of businesses.

the only real hold back these days are on products costing under $60, due to the fee's being sometimes upto 60cents which works out as upto 1%.

firstly segwit guarantee's nothing.
when activated. nothing changes.
users have to wait for yet another implementation release that offers the actual p2wpkh/p2wsh key utility
AT VERY BEST .. IF 100% of users used p2wpkh/p2wsh keys instead of legacy(old) keys, expect maximum of about 4500tx instead of ~2500

but here is the thing
spammers, scammers and bloaters wont use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys. so dont expect 4500tx a block
even moral people take months/years to upgrade their implementations. so even after it activates dont expect noticable rises anytime soon

and lastly. the mempools is very often full of more than 4500tx unconfirmed at most times. so many transactions are still going to be waiting even in the utopian statistic of 100% dream utility.

segwit is just an empty gesture kicking the stone down the road

segwit does not solve that.

edit
i now see the topic was meant for satire / reverse psychology, hinting subtly that china still allows bitcoin



ZERO bans, zero raids

if the question was
how many times have regulatory inspectors done regular inspections. the answer is often.

if exchanges are handling chinese FIAT they have to follow chinese FIAT rules.
holding part fiat, part crypto does not give a business magic fairy dust to avoid fiat rules of the fiat they hold.

genesis block . it just makes logical sense

yet another hyperledger advertisement.

im starting to think we should create a whole new subcategory in the altcoin section for the bankers to talk about their hyperledger plans.

adam backs involvement in bitcoins invention is the same as a cavemans involvement in the combustion engine.
yea a caveman invented fire, and without fire a combustion engine cannot work.

but adam backs hashcash is DIFFERENT to the ACTUAL PoW bitcoin uses.
yes there was some inspiration. but adam back was not directly involved in coding bitcoin in 2008-2013,

adam back is just playing the caveman card by trying to get fame for something losely connected to him

all adam back wants to do is beat his own chest to make people think he is worth investing $90m dollars in
the thing is adam back is not finding it easy to repay investors. and those are getting antsy about repayments and plans of commercialising things like elements/bitcoin to get some funds back.

funny thing.
its only core that want altcoins.
they love their monero, they love their elements, they love their litecoin, they love thier future sidechains.
they even love asking other teams to not stay as one network


but non-core teams refused to split off and make an altcoin. they prefer to keep the network in one piece

.. mic drop. boom

'onchain scaling is not a thing' ??
im guessing you dont understand bitcoin or LN.. lets read on and see if you have done any research about consensus, about LN, about multisigs. about anything you actually need to know to for you to have an informed opinion.


1. the paid core devs ARE blockstream, the unpaid devs are loyal interns hoping to get a blockstream job. you can tell due to their lack of objection to obvious flaws wrote by blockstream paid devs
2. consensus=agreement with small risk of temporary orphans.. NOT a split.... a split is not consensus. learn consensus vs bilateral split. try not to pretend consensus causes splits.
3. core want other implementations to bilateral split(non-core object to this). core just scare the community saying non-core will split to play the victim card. while under same breath begging non-core implementations to bilateral split. but non-core wont split off intentionally.


1. the argument of the rational community (much bigger than just BU), so dont attempt to make it just a bu vs blockstream thing..
2. many rational bitcoin community people care more about bitcoins consensus, not the failed banks FIAT value. the failed banks are going to hyper inflate anyway. where a loaf of bread will eventually be $2000. smart people dont care about fiat value, because inflation of fiat is killing fiat all by itself


agreed segwit isnt needed for LN. but segwit is a stepping stone for other features that give blockstream the upper power. EG the way blocks will be formed would require blockstream gate keepers UPSTREAM to filter the data out to the downsteam nodes. (fibre is already becoming the pools gatekeeper)
other stepping stones segwit leads to is sidechains.. yep blockstream want altcoins aswell as the LN commercial permissioned hubs. aswll as being the network gatekeepers (as gmaxwell calls fibre, the 'upstream filter'


you do know that letting blockstream succeed is helping them get more involved in hyperledger (the bankers chain)


miners should not have power anyway if core actually cared and used consensus. again im thinking you need to learn about real full consensus..
blockstream paid devs decided to avoid real consensus by going soft. the reason. if it works they have slipped in their control stepping stones without nodes consent. if it fails they can play the victim card blaming the miners. yet it was them that decided to give miners power. so shouldnt
blame the miners if the miners disagree


you need to learn about LN and learn multisig. dont be fooled by the word twisting like "birdirectional". and instead realise your funds are put into
a joint account where you need a counter parties permission.. and if that counterparty is a hub.. essentially they are a bank. authorising their many customers payments


agree with that statement above. but we should not be just letting LN be the end goal of bitcoin.. only let it be a side service for niche users


1. the community is much wider than your attempt to just plop people into bandcamps.
2. also the fake scare of quadratics is fail because any malicious user who wants to make quadratic tx's still can after segwit activation.. they just avoid using p2wpkh keys.
2. thus segwit doesnt end quadratics. the real solution can be found in other ways. such as limit how many sigops a tx can have.


lol shouting fear of growth by using fake stories of gigabytes by midnight and billions of users by midnight.. is a failed and flawed argument to intentionally hold up real onchain natural growth, and only done to promote the centralised commercial services as the end goal.
natural growth scaled over decades where natural adoption occures over decades shows it can work. but i bet you will scream the "not overnight" empty argument


pools dont care about fee's. fee's are just a bonus. pools care more about having a functional and spendable network to spend their rewards. without doing anything to the network that would cause pools efforts to get orphaned. fee's are not a concern for decades.

its blockstream that are desperate to push users into commercial hubs so that blockstream can repay their banker investors


a straight 2mb is just a tmporary gsture that lasts no time at all.. mempools already contain more than double a blocksize of unconfirmed tx's so its not really giving any breathing room. secondly after 2mb. its then another long beg/grovvel and treat devs like kings for more again. instead of letting nodes decide for themselves.
please learn consensus


if a sidechain (an altcoin) can be vertical.. then obviously tx count vs tx count would allow bitcoin do the same after all an altcoin is limited by the same internet and hardware as bitcoin..
so i see this as a failed argument. if a sidechains computer and internet can cope. then internet and computer is not a problem for bitcoin. (logic!)


lets summarise
1. segwit promises 2.1x tx count - reality only if 100% of people use segwit keys(not gonna happen)
2. segwit promises end quadratics - reality bloated spammers loving quadratics simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
3. segwit promises end malleability - reality double spending scammers simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
4. segwit promises end double spend - reality blockstream added new double spending methods(RBF/CPFP/CLTV+CSV). thus segwit has solved nothing.
5. segwit promises tx fee discount - reality blockstream removed reactive fee and added fee average. pushing the price up to offset future discount.

as for solutions.
the reason you see no alternative solutions in blockstreams moderated github bip list is because the bips have to go through blockstreams CTO's
approval process atleast twice officially. and in reality more like 3-4 times. so lack of seeing anything in the bips by non blockstream friendly devs does not mean there are no bips/alternatives. it just means gmaxwell 'takes one look at the computer screen.... and its gone!'

lastly. dealing with your final sentence of:
'Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution '
segwit is not a solution. its a tweak that offers a temporary empty gesture. but leads things into a direction away from bitcoin scaling and only into altcoin and offchain commercial permissioned scaling.

p.s
dont be a sheep script reading and just throwing insults that i must be in bandcamp A,B,C or d.. instead be wise. do some research into the topics and learn
consensus vs bilateral splits
multisig permissioned contracts
sidechains(altcoins)

you ask, how can they stop volatility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_curb

if price drops X% a trading curb can be used.
though there is no official guidelines for bitcoin exchanges to use this. it is a well known tool in the fiat markets.

we have seen some exchanges halt trading during huge dumps. but no official policy requested it, it was more of a moral decision by the exchanges

but non of satoshis 'vision' was mentioned just 100 server nodes all using one brand of software.
so dont assume satoshi wants centralisation.. of one brand of software and low amount of full nodes.

non of satoshi's vision of server farms should be of concern for decades if ever. so halting growth now pretending that just rational node capable growth leads to server farms by midnight. is also twisting his words.

i prefer there to be a dozen brands and many thousands of nodes..
yet core are happy to just want Fibre to be the gate keepers filtering data downstream and just have other nodes as simple relayers. where its Fibre that do the real validating and filtering.

node consensus allows natural growth which nodes can handle, while not hindering growth or node count. thus the natural balance of growth can happen without being 'servers' anytime soon.

but ofcourse devs want to be the king decision makers
we need to start thinking that nodes should decide and devs are just the employee's/workers.. not the other way round

start digging into BTCC aswell .. the other segwit supporter
and see all the ties of the knot to blockstream, coinbase, coindesk, litecoin,