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,

rather than segwit. which only benefits those that use segwit keys (meaning malicious people just avoid segwit keys to remain malicious)
rather than LN. which only benefits those that use LN (meaning malicious people just avoid LN to remain malicious)

i see a new 'priority formulae' being used onchain of bitcoins mainnet.
this is what i see as the logical punishment for bloating/rspending spammers. whilst rewarding moral normal transactors

one which includes a CLTV voluntary option. where users gain priority points if they voluntarily agree to put their funds into a 1-day maturity. but those avoiding the one day before respend or have bloated transactions pay more to get into a block sooner.

EG
if you really need priority you agree that once confirmed you cant respend for a day.
it also means you can be selective of priority. by only putting a 142block wait if your happy to wait a couple blocks because it wont be priority for a couple blocks by not paying quite enough fee. allowing the age/maturity/fee variables to give a better flag of desire.

obviously those moral users that actually need to spend more than once a day could see the niche of LN as a way to transact often and cheaper.
and those that dont spend every day get priority and not need LN or to CLTV mature funds, because they are not spending everyday, anyway.

here is one example of a formulae that does not care about how much people are spending (not a rich gets priority, poor are victimised old formula), but rewards people willing to wait a day, have lean transactions. and penalises those that want to respend often or have bloated transactions



basically
if your transaction is 2x a lean tx. you pay twice as much. if 44x a lean tx you pay 44x
if you dont want to mature your funds for 144 blocks and only want to wait 1 block you pay 144x.
if the tx is both 44x bloated and wants to respend the very next block after getting confirmed then it costs 44x*144X


though my formulae is not finalised or perfect for every utility. i see how changing the priority formulae can cause more benefits for good people and penalise the bad, without making it used just to be snobby about rich vs poor. due to it no longer rewarding the rich with points just for being rich, which the old formulae done

sidechain=altcoin
LN = offchain service.

yes they have a niche. but if you think that pushing people to the side(altcoin) or offchain service, is some how "bitcoin able to manage any possible amount of transactions" then you are not seeing reality.

you might aswell be saying
if users move funds to 'clams' altcoin and use bitgo.com multisig then bitcoin will never need to fill blocks because bitcoin is not being used.

wake up
if blocks will never be full again and people are filling an alternative chain.. then bitcoin has failed.
all because you think stupidly bitcoin would succeed by people not using bitcoin.

think rationally will you

you might as well be saying
"my marriage is a success because i stopped making love to my wife years ago, and started boning the next door neighbour and text flirting with the babysitter'

no, read again...

CLTV adds a maturity period to a confirmed transaction. (much like the block rewards 100confirm maturity). this is indeed locked into a blockchain confirmed tx, not a tx sat in mempool
CLTV is different than n-locktime.

nlocktime prevents a tv getting into a block. but CLTV prevents funds being spent(by intended party) for a period AFTER getting into a block

during the CLTV maturity period, CSV can revoke the funds and send them to another destination depending on the terms(destination) of the revoke.
CLTV+CSV = analogy of 3-5 bank business days funds unavailable AFTER withdrawal(confirm) where funds can be charged back

blockchain is capable to prevent all types of fraud.. until..

devs stupidly add
CSV/CLTV - laymens: 'chargeback feature during funds balance unavailable' even after confirmation
RBF - laymans: 'replace transaction to fake a payment and double spend while unconfirmed'
CPFP - laymans: 'replace transaction to fake a payment and double spend while unconfirmed'

the confirmation time average RULE. is not strictly about 10minutes.

its actually an expectation of 2016 blocks over a 2week period. which for simply minds outside of the rule people in conversations say '10 minutes' to avoid the technical math waffle.

it is normal to have blocks unluckily at 40mins and luckily at 2mins. as long as the average is 2016 blocks a fortnight.
mining is a luck game so dont expect 10mins as a strict 'norm'

pools dont care much about fee's, for them a fee is just a bonus, not expected income.
pools care more about ensuring their blocks wont get orphaned/rejected. losing them the real income(reward) AND fee (bonus). so they are not going to push for something unless the nodes are ready for it.

50% node readiness = 50% orphan risk
95% node readiness = 5% orphan risk

so even though core thought bypassing a node vote would slide a change in under the rug, smart pools are not going to risk it, and are waiting to see a high node readiness even if the nodes dont officially get a vote.

IF 100% of users moved their funds to p2wpkh/p2wsh(segwit keys) then expect at best the 1mb baseblock for their signatureless tx data and 1.1mb for their signature data(in the witness area).

core provided a buffer beyond the 1mb base block of upto 3mb(witness area) totalling 4mb weight(total possible bloat). but its not how CB describes it..
as i said if 100% utilised segwit keys expect the data to achieve 2.1mb (1mb base+1.1mb witness used) leaving 1.9mb spare.

later this 1.9mb spare space wont be used for more transaction count growth (without increasing the base). but will allow core to add in other features. such as confidential payment codes which add an extra kilobyte to a tx.

EG
pre segwit
1mb=~2100tx right now
2009-2016 total =<1mb data for ~2100 tx

if 100% utilised segwit keys and activation by 2018
1mb base=~4500tx at most
1.1mb witness=the signatures
2017-2018 total =<2.1mb data for ~4500 tx

if 100% utilised segwit keys and activation by 2018 and CPC added later
1mb base=~4500tx at most
1.1mb witness=the signatures
1.9mb buffer=space for CPC or other bloat.
2018-20xx total =<4mb data for ~4500 tx

yes they are giving a gesture of upto 4mb of 'blocksize' but not giving 4x CAPACITY

emphasis
if only say 50% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 1.5mb blocksize (3300tx due to segwit)
if only say 10% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 1.1mb blocksize (2300tx due to segwit)
which when other bloated features are added
if only say 50% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 3.5mb blocksize (3300tx due to segwit)
if only say 10% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 3.1mb blocksize (2300tx due to segwit)

ofcourse you didnt say those three things. because you dont know segwit well enough.
please read beyond the glossy pamphlets and promotional posters. think logically, critically and objectively at the small print.



segwit does not solve the problem for the whole network. it only prevents those who voluntarily choose to use p2wpkh keys from
making quadratic tx's.. IT DOES NOT prevent malicious people. because they simply wont use p2wpkh..
making malleated tx's.. IT DOES NOT prevent malicious people. because they simply wont use p2wpkh..
making base block legacy transactions. IT DOES NOT PREVENT malicious people. because they simply wont use p2wpkh..

thus it does not solve the problem for the network.
it just give a gesture to ethical people.. like simply giving ethical people a gold star sticker and a pat on the back, while the problems
of the whole network still exist, for the malicious people who dont voluntarily use p2wpkh keys.

for emphasis
it does not fix the network or the problem it just strokes ethical peoples heads to sleep, saying they are doing their small part towards a temporary empty gesture

fixed that for you, i fully agree with the rest

1. segwit is not going to be used by everyone. so dont xpect the TOP 2.1mb (2.1x) TEMPORARY GESTURE
2. the TEMPORARY GESTURE wont even give days or months of peace.
3. the TEMPORARY GESTURE wont be used by those intent on causing issues
4. segwits other 'fixes' malleability, quadratics, stepping stone to LN, wont be used by by those intent on causing issues

segwit solves nothing. and is just an empty gesture of spoonfeeding empty promises. not real scaling or real solutions

agreed

pay nodes to be nodes does not lead to diverse decentralised node count

it leads to a select few people who run 100 nodes. who blacklist other people and white list their own to ensure the funds flow through their list to increase their own income

it also costs the transactor more due to having to pay for each 'hop'/relay on the way to where it should go.
which again ends up with people blacklisting certain nodes and trying to find ways to get to the destination with least hops/relays.

imagine Fibre
set up as the gate keeper to pools and filtering data down to the nodes but whitelisting which nodes connect to it. thus the single owner of Fibre (matt corallo) would get the income in such an event of 'nodes getting paid' because everyone loops through his Fibre nodes ring around the pools

reject that was rejected in 3 seconds before needing the ban hammer..
but core nodes went anal by blocking nodes.
this in short is core triggering what could have ended up as a core caused bilateral fork. due to core rules.
it was a non event because it was a 3 second reject. but core nodes made a mountain out of a mole hill with such silly banscore settings.

there was no intention by any non-core node to cause a bilateral split and if core were unbiased they would have updated the banscore code to be fair to how to treat the network properly.

in laymens "oh look a reject, lets bin it and move on with our lives"
instead of "oh look a reject, lets lock all the doors and close all the windows and scream on forums that apocalypse nearly occured"

i call that desparation

doomad

if you put aside the "21m coins" max logic, and instead think about the 2.1 quadrillian units of measure (satoshi's)
much like not thinking about $21 dollars but thinking about 2100 pennies (smallest sharable amount)

and then read the LN paper about their 'millisats', you realise that in contracts they want to transact in millisats
2,100quadrillian millisats instead of 2.1quadrillian sats.

though the '2.1million bitcoin' is not changing. the numbers of 'shares' / units / divisibility can be changed.this means it can mess with the mental psychology of scarcity.

imagine it another way.
you have a loaf of bread that can be cut into 20 slices of bread.
yes your thinking that a loaf of bread can only feed 20 people at most. no more. only 20 slices exist and only 1 loaf exists. now you can have people fighting over owning the whole loaf or fighting over the 20 slices.

now imagine a Baker comes in and decides to cut each slice into 10 strips per slice.

now suddenly there are 200 pieces of bread that can be shared around with 200 people

yes there is just one complete loaf. or 20 'slices' but there are now 200 shareable pieces
the whole supply/demand dynamic can change if people are able to have/receive more pieces

now here is the challenge,
get a $20 bank note
and find 2,000,000 people.

now shout out what the people are willing to trade with you for that $20
you will get lots of people offering you many things. upto a value they see as worth $20.. where by your the only holder so you can pick the best deal offered.

now change it for 2000 pennies.. suddenly when asking what people will offer you for it. less people will offer you the same deal as before for the entire 2000 pennies. most will start giving you lame deals for small amounts of sat 100 pennies.

now change it for 2,000,000 grains of pnny metal dust.
.... silence. no offers..
but technically you still have $20.

now you see the issue of making bitcoin more diverse.

its not technically fractional reserve, but more so 'diluting shares' mindset

mollah appointed 2014+  not prior to 2009
false companies because thier accounts look empty compared to real functioning company accounts
he failed to backdate anything that actually alludes to a true date proof of 2007

i first heard of bitcoin in 2011 and got high involved in 2012

lauda.
firstly stop using umbrella terms..
hard fork = empty word
try using hard consensus (what the community want)

secondly
the blockstream "bips"
are moderated by gmaxwell.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/d9e890a8f27e46806238e298a346397871fd7e87/README.mediawiki


requiring people to post a topic in this forums technical section - moderated by gmaxwell
discussed in the IRC - moderated by gmaxwell
then added to mailinglist moderated by gmaxwell.
before getting a chance to be posted in the github which requires gmaxwells attention.. (as quoted above)

so your "there are no other bips" is just short sighted word twisting of
"there isnt a hard consensus proposal that gmaxwell has approved"

wake up to reality

please lauda.
spend just 30 minutes learning real things.
i dont mean this in any negative way.
just take off the blockstream defender hat. and wear a critical/logical hat..

and dont waste time with how you are bing victimised by me asking you such things in such a manner. use that fake crying victim card playing time to be of some actual use to you and learn real things.

learn consensus vs bilateral
learn soft can also have bilerateral

learn hard and soft is just about who votes first/at all.
learn the basics.

please dont waste peoples time with your old "your ad-hom victimising me". spend time learning and come back a wiser person with actual concepts  of code/scenarios of utility to rebuttle.. not the usual 'troll' social drama

i agree with what your post says, but trying to teach some people needs to be done more simply.
i dont like resorting to this way of teaching people.. but i feel its the only way they will learn their own hypocrisy, due to the only method they seem to be learning their fake scripts is done this way..

so lets teach them the real truth, in a learning style they can accept.

stephen mollah made some false companies in the last couple years.. not as far back as 2007
 no proof of any connection prior to well after bitcoin was released.
(dude cant even backdate properly)

moving on