there are OVER 90,000 FIAT bank branches in america alone.
imagine each bank branch has 10 pc's..
EG 6 cashier/teller terminals. a couple admin computer terminals, bank manager and such terminals.

thats 900,000 pc's
and im not even counting the ATMS
and im not even counting the banks customer call centre terminals
and im not even counting the banks HQ skycrapers
and im not even counting the banks nasdaq market terminals
and im not even counting the banks auditors terminals
and im not even counting the banks security guards terminals
and im not even counting the banks regulators terminals.

so lets say there are 2million computers linked up just for "the dollar"

.. take some time to let that sink in..

nope
analysts have looked at the details and spotted he is british background. and times zones of activity do not relate to asian daylight hours

the 'satoshi" seems to have emanated from a cryptographic game about anonymity.. this game existed way before bitcoin, which it seems bitcoins creator adopted that pseudonym after the game but before bitcoin due to an interest in that game.
that game was not asian founded either, but the target of the game had the name satoshi.(games target is not the bitcoin creator although both entities decided on same name)

its much like saying if i named myself franky. does that mean im german by default due to to the origins of the name.. nope
its my interest in the name frank that has many wordplay possibilities behind it, as the reason i chose it. one of which relates to germany.

but with all that said.. all indications and rational thought show that satoshi's skill set, dsires, motives and analytical info of what we can establish, the bitcoin creator is NOT john nash.. nor is satoshi japanese.. nor is satoshi craig wright either

you have no clue

1. NODES decide what is acceptable.  not pools, not devs. its actually the "trust a corporate paid dev" that would lead to failure.

2. if nodes cannot handle certain amounts of data, they would not flag desire for it.. pools seeing nodes cant accept it wont make large data due to risk of their attempts being rejected (meaning worthless them even trying). so nodes wont be cut out the system. nodes dominate the system and its devs/miners that would drop out if pools cannot gain funds from mining. and devs that will drop out if their corporate investments dry up if nodes decide not to change into commercial service nodes to give devs fee's to repay investors

3. bitcoin nodes need to remain diverse to not allow a team (from any brand) to dominate the code and twist it into something of commercial banking interest. bitcoin nodes need to remain diverse to use CONSENSUS to decide what is safe and good.. not devs or pools to decide for the network. more diverse brands/nodes.. not one king leader brand that changes rules without node vote

4. devs and pools are not the leaders and should not be seen as the leaders. devs and pools should only be seen as the workers/employee's of bitcoin.

5. the network should decide for itself what is manageable, and have NATURAL growth that nodes can handle. not based on what devs spoon feed as rules. but as what nodes CAN handle. by the nodes flagging what they can handle

6. stop believing the "gigabytes by midnight" scare stories, stop believing the "bitcoin beat visa 900mill customer by tommorow" scare stories.

7. think rational. we are at 0.026% population now. dont expect "100% one-world currency by midnight" instead expect 5% world utility in 20-30 years, which still will make bitcoin in the top 5 'nations' of the world. and at a natural, realistic, possible way.

8. getting to atleast 5% in 20-30 years is EASY onchain, without asking much from nodes, because technology of the next 20-30 years grows.
   we do not need to surrender into commercial permissioned LN hubs to "be like visa/paypal"..

9. we just need to drop the exaggerated doomsdays of "cant scale by tonight, so need LN's commercial solution forever".. and instead be rational. start allowing real node defining/deciding(dynamic) onchain scaling. where pools only make bigger blocks when nodes have consensus to let pools do so without much/any orphan risk.

be rational. think smart. and do research, dont play the script games of believing something because a paid dev must be good because he wouldnt be paid otherwise.
think about whats best for bitcoin. not the dev's.
think about bitcoins open permissionless no barrier of entry ethos. not the commercial services that look pretty and propose to make everyone rich

at the last count there were 60-ish of the 200 nations that are getting interested in blockchain (by this im talking about blockchain ledgers that will sidechain to hyperledger, not bitcoin)

so they can control their crytocurrency. but they would still be 'mananged' /audited by the IMF (main top ledger of hyperledger pyramid) so it wont be complete control.

and will end up not offering much better 'services' to citizens but would be more cost effective to the nation. and offering more ways for banks back-end to profit

trainwreck.
all you care about is clickbaiting your medium article.

many people have talked about john nash YEARS ago.
you have not added anything else to the argument apart from endless "did you read it did you read it" click begging

shut up about the click begs of wanting people to click your article.
the content of that article offers NO better info then whats already been discussed before.

segwit is not actually a 2mb blocksize.

its a effective one time boost which .. wait for it..
IF EVERYONE moved their funds over to P2WPKH /P2wSH keys.. then statistically there would be around 2.1x transactions(2.1mb) MAXIMUM expectation.
but you cant re-segwit a segwit to double again... its a one time max potential..

and right now knowing only 50% have segwit nodes... and half of that wait 3-6months before upgrading to latest software
would mean
once activated, there is a lul period*. after that when the full segwit wallet version is available only 25% would move to the version with P2WPKH/P2PSH key wallets included within 3-6months. so only assume 1.25mb blocksize effectively..  

then after that only assume 1.5mb blocksize effectively.. due to only half the network with segwit nodes that would have caught up with upgrading.
so at best, based on the node count stats of now as reference, even upto a year after activation. only expect 1.5x transactions (1.5mb) and then some iffy time period if or when there may or may not be 100% utility of p2Wpkh.p2WSH keys to get to the 2.1x(2mb) maxim

*even core themselves have stated even if pools got to 95% and activated.. core wont release the full segwit (including p2wPKH/p2wSH key generation) node for atleast a few weeks or long AFTER activation..
so dont expect to see anything actually change any time soon

---

the funny part. if they went with hard(meaning nodes first, then pools) consensus(meaning meaning agreement not split)  the nodes would be ready sooner, the pools would gain confidence nodes could handle it. and they would be ready sooner. and the possibility that after activation nodes would then download the full version with P2W wallets active, would be possibly higher. to get even closer to the 2.1mb maxim hope..

but that 2.1mb maxim is a best possible.. and unrepeatable boost. so dont bet any funds on it actually occuring... much like dont expect toput a bet on that bitcoin could actually achieve 7tx/s between 2009/2016.. if you time travelled back to 2009.. even if 'expectations' say it was possible.

lol
it was a reject that was handled in 3 seconds..

core pools make rejects and orphans a few times a week that last more than 3 seconds
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

oh and if you were around in 2013 and remember the mega orphan chain due to the levelDB bug..
guess who caused it..
yep SIPA. the guy you trust to offer sgwit, and implement it without nodes being ready...
couldnt even sort out a database 4 years ago

by the way what would be a real mindblowing experience for you to try.
instead of thinking that bitcoin needs masters. think about consensus. where the bitcoin node network rules supreme
and devs and pools are merely helpers.. not controllers

im guessing english is not your first language, to which i do not disrespect. i travel the world and speak to many cultures and always humbled by such.

but i have to ask.
you keep mentioning the word "furniture"

do you mean like a sofa or table in someones home.
do you mean like a sofa or table manufacturer building such furniture
do you mean like a electronic household furnishings such as TV, room heaters, window blinds, fridges.

please give an example of what you are specifically asking for. EG pick a piece of furniture. or what you mean by the furniture. using it, making it..

can you make a P2WPHK tx today on bitcoin mainnet..... no
is P2WPHK key generation active on bitcoin mainnet......no
do pools accept P2WPHK tx today on bitcoin mainnet..... no
do old nodes relay P2WPHK tx today on bitcoin mainnet..... no

for comparison
can you make a litecoin tx today on bitcoin mainnet..... no
is litecoin key generation active on bitcoin mainnet......no
do pools accept litecoin tx today on bitcoin mainnet..... no
do old nodes relay litecoin tx today on bitcoin mainnet..... no

now. is litecoin tx format part of bitcoin. no..
now. is P2WPHK tx format part of bitcoin. no..

thus. its not bitcoin.
oh and yea in the future rules can change where we could include litecoin tx format in bitcoin...
but having a FUTURE possibility. does that then make litecoin no longer an altcoin?


please dont hit reply just yet.
take a deep breath
stand back from the keyboard.
let your thoughts gather.
put on your logic hat and spend a few minutes thinking about it. logically.

please do not reply whilst wearing your defender hat

lets address some of the r/bitcoin comments

BU XT classic, and other dozen implementations are running with full features active.
xt's 8mb block and classics 2mb block are this(laymens):anything BELOW X is acceptable.
1mb is below X so its acceptable
again they have been running on the mainnet for months/years.
... let me predict the rebuttle. 'but blocks are not 2/8mb so their feature is not working.
to which i say
'so cores 1mb feature was not active in 2009-2015 when blocks were not 1mb. wait cores 1mb feature is not active now because we even today
have some empty blocks and blocks that are only 990k.. not 1mb.. think about the subtle illogic of that.

guess this guy never heard of decentralised and diverse network.
if core are needed to appraise a implementation then core control bitcoin. total opposite of what bitcoin is about. sorry. not gonna fly.
bitcoin should not have any 'kings' on any side. it should be the NODES that form consensus. not devs.
make me wonder what doomsdays will cry out when devs are not needed. remember folks bitcoin should function without reliance of a master.
let the network consensus be the decision maker. not the devs. (next statement explains itself later) devs 'are just the employees of bitcoin'. not the masters.

nodes set the limits. pools follow whats acceptable. if nodes cant handle it then nodes dont go for it. meaning pools dont go for it. no harm no foul
however. core devs, avoided letting nodes decide a core feature and handed power to devs. yep. core done what this guy is wrongly suggesting BU are doing. letting the pools decide, even when half the nodes wont fully validate, but be downgraded to 'compatible'
core done this knowing if things screw up, core devs can shift the blame onto the pools. if things work out, devs can take the glory...

again if nodes cant handle it, nodes dont vote for it, meaning pools dont make it. no harm no loss no centralization.
however with core wanting to activate a feature with only 50% fulll validation node acceptance, then offer them same nodes the ability to prune off data. then offer the community an alternative client that uses a lightning network. thus diluting the full node count even further. i see core causing more issues to the node count.


LN's abilities away from the glossy pamphlet sales pitch has less utility than you may think. it is not a solution to common people, its penalties and locks end up giving usrs the same experience as paypal.
some people are happy to let LN have a go as a voluntary side service. as long as onchain real diverse dcentralised dynamic scaling is allowed where NODES set the rules. not devs, not pools.

i have to agree with this quote.

BU do not want bilateral forks. neither did classic or xt or the other dozen implementations. they want consensus. it is core devs that have desired bilateral forks and said how great ethereum was for doing it.

as you can see the other implementations rejected causing an altcoin. and now the r/bitcoin are desperate to make other implementations move to an alt. while at the same time crying that the other implementations will create an alt.
to me thats like poking the bear to make it bite just to play the victim. every desperate method to make core the king controller


as we can see he will intentionally split the network by ignoring blocks of the opposition to force a soft fork in.
if he is willing to risk making an alt. why not avoid a hard bilateral, avoid a soft bilateral. and instead do a hard consensus. get the node count up. because obviously its the nodes that matter most.. to then give the pools the confidence boost that nothing bad will happen.

firstly BU never had 13.2btc to lose. in there are 20+ pools working non stop. getting a reject is the same as not solving a block. it didnt cost 13.2btc, bu simply didnt win 13.2btc, just like the other 19+ pools didnt win either.
secondly, it was a reject, dealtwith and thrown aside in 3 seconds
drama over in 3 seconds.
yet cored based pools cause rejects and orphans every day.
i even remember Sipa's bad code causing a 12 hour tail of orphans in 2013 (LevelDB bug). yep Sipa caused that boo boo

and now because those in r/bitcoin love their memes ill leave this for them

firstly learn consensus agreement vs bilateral split.

too many times people only speak of the best case scenario of soft and the worse case of hard.(they know why they do it!!)
but effectively the only difference between soft and hard is who gets to vote to activate..

soft.. pool votes nodes dont.
hard.. nodes vote then pools.

but in both soft and hard. both can have consensus, both can be controversial and both can have bilateral

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 - 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 - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

to make an actual altcoin you need to do more then just make bigger blocks or send an erroneous transaction.. as that just causes rejects/orphans.

you need to actually make the nodes ignore the opposing data and nodes so that they are not sticking to the same data. and instead walk in opposite directions

high agreement = less orphans low agreement = more orphans.
but if you have another clause to avoid rejecting or even seeing the opposition. then you are risking creating an altcoin

probably the only thing carlton has said this year that has merit.
the pools wont do anything if the risk of orphan is too high.. = incentive to play it safe and wait until there is little to no. or atleast acceptable risk

even with soft. even knowing nodes are not voting, pools are not going to risk doing anything to cause high orphan rate.
so this is why even with a soft fork. pools are waiting to see(unofficially) if node counts rise up to show they can validate FULLY the data devs want pools to make.

its not about letting miners choose the size..

its about the NODES choosing what they can cope with.. and they then if there is a node network consensus that Xmb can be accepted.

the pools can then show their desire, and then at a certain time everything is minimal risk/ averted most issues, they make blocks to a size thats within that limit. usually starting small amounts above old limits to test the water.

the mining pools cannot exceed the limit that the nodes cannot cope with otherwise they are just gonna see their blocks rejected.

..

much like right now pools are not going to intentionally go outside of limits until they see high majority node acceptance. even for segwit
60% of pools have not flagged desire of segwit or not segwit.. because they have not yet seen what nodes can or cant handle.
even though segwit is a soft fork and doesnt need a node count(hard) the pools are still watching the node count before deciding

because smart people know, nodes matter most

yep, i have been hearing about smart fridges from like 2005

back then it was not the IoT
it was just deemed "connected living"

voluntary is the utopia/hope. but with onchain tx fee war, the over promotion of LN's utility. halting onchain blocksize. etc etc.. you can see they are aiming for it to be less than voluntary.

EG
if you had to choose between permissionless tx that cost $1 a time and still took an hour
vs
first permissionless tx that cost $1 and still took an hour, but then every 'payment' for 2 weeks was only 5cents and took as fast as both can agree to it (seconds).
would you see the psychological motive of less than voluntary

especially now that they are trying to make LN's locktime become extendable without settling, to keep people locked in.

i would accept LN as a side service.. i see it has a niche for some utility but onchain scaling needs to be sorted.
i dont see LN being useful to everyone

but all blockstream care about is LN as they need a revenue generator to repay the $90m
so looks like onchain scaling is on hold until LN has fully grabbed users funds to charge them fee's


bitcoin legacy (old normal) transactions, dont need consent(permission) you make it, you sign it you send it

LN is consentual(permissioned) you need someone elses consent/permission/signature/authorisation/agreement.
EG like a bank. you can pay anyone in the world. and you dont need the end recipients permission (not 3rd party)
but you do need banks authorisation/agreement/permission(2nd party)

you dont relay after sigining.. its already in a smart contract.. thats what "contract" is.. 2 party agreement.

im sure later there may be more 'smart' clauses they will add. but for now post-confirm maturty after settlement (cltv) and chargebacks (csv revokes) are what they are aiming for


exactly

google is your friend.
lightning network HUBs


that paragraph quote is just talking about A<->B
the prelim understanding from late 2015.

then they went on to talk about hops in january 2016
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

this is where they started talking about a-b-c-d-e

but they soon realise.. although A only talks to B...
B talks both to A and C

in january 2016 they realised B was actually a custodian (mini hub) between A and C
and they started theorising.
what if B also had a connection to D
what if B also had a connection to E

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

by summer 2016 they continued the idea of 'hub-and-spoke'

again google is your friend

i think DooMAD meant BITCOIN asics didnt exist in 2008.
but im sure satoshi knew whatever he chose could be abused / done efficiently. so just chose the lessor of the 2 evils

PoS is just allowing the richer guy to sign. because they have above X stake. thus the whole rich vs poor paradigm would have played out far sooner than the asic one, which didnt really begin until 2013

if something needs a cpu. no matter what it is..
someone can make a chip thats only sole purpose is a single function. so that its more efficient.
and then make a mainboard of multiple chips to multiply that efficiency.

no matter what hash or method he could ever think off there will be many people finding ways to do it more efficiently and then find the loop hole
to increase their 'luck'

EG 1 node one signature... where 400 people are signing. each person has a 0.25% chance

loophole= run 200 nodes
600 signing.. but one person has 33% chance

IBM ADEPT
https://youtu.be/U1XOPIqyP7A?t=2m44s

im not even sure why CB is even trying to troll full nodes users.

from what i have seen he is a multibit fanboy. and refuses to learn about networks and consensus.
im sure he is only here to defend blockstream rather than decentralised and diverse bitcoin network

nothing he has said has shown he is defending the diverse consensus network known as bitcoin.
but is quick to troll anyone who speaks negatively of core/blockstream