though i said it above ill say again. even though nods dont get a vote, pools wont decide unless they see nodes will accept and be able to FULLY VALIDATE the changes

the 95% consensus is not about worry of bilateral split.. its the worry of orphan drama and double spend risk while the orphan drama occures.

the 5% orphan drama (95% acceptance) is similar to the old addage "wait upto 6 confirms before trusting funds are safe".
where as 25% orphan drama (75% acceptance) would end up in more orphan drama of 'wait upto 36 confirms before trusting funds are safe"

how it works

pools wont change the rules unless they see unanimous or high majority of nodes will accept any change a pool makes.
otherwise a reject occurs and the change was worthless..

pools dont have power because they need node acceptance.

pools wont decide what to do unless they see nodes want and will accept it.
w are not controlled by pools. but blockstream have by-passed a node vote to make it just a pool vote. so that if the election wins devs can take the glory and say their election wins.. or if not. then blockstream devs can play the victim card and shout racial abuse or suggest that pools are bad communists and that blockstream should do a bilateral split and kill the commi's.

this is why i hate people spouting out the racial slurs of people trying to insinuate the pools are colluding and controlling bitcoin.. because its playing blockstream games even if they the racial taunters oppose blockstream.

hense why it should not have been a node-bypassing vote, and devs wanting only pools to vote. because pools are still going to wait for what nodes want to do even if nodes dont get a vote.

any drastic changes that can cause a node to reject or even not validate at all(blind pass-it-on 'backward compatible') should still be a full hard CONSENSUS vote.

also funny that when talking soft or hard. core love to talk about best case scenario soft but worse case hard.  but never the opposite.
pretending that instead of atleast 6 options there are only 2

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


here is the blockstream CTO calling out for a soft. yes soft bilateral split(only needs pools to change something). which ends up causing the a hard bilateral split(nodes banning other nodes and data)


lucky pools and all non-cor implementation devs rejected maxwells proposal. and instead laughed at him for even suggesting it.

here he is again suggesting if pools dont vote his way he will soft bilateral split the network to get his way.


yep soft can also cause split too.

what should have always been the case is a full hard CONSENSUS vote vote.

nodes first, get to 95% to give pools confidence. then pools second to activate and also give the remaining 5% of nodes time to upgrade/decide too.

dont be biased.
remember 21.co said they (one entity) will launch 100+ core nodes
remember btcc said they (one entity) will launch 100 core nodes
Fibre having lots of nodes
Cornell having lots of nodes
and many other examples.

so yes there could be sybil attacks. but at the same argument... a sybil attack can be easy to spot.
EG strange jump in nodes for a short period.
we can ignore those that obviously launched temporarily.
especially if the new node count are using old code to hinder new features that the community actually want.

EG say core finally release a consensus utilising code that includes dynamic blocks.
and all other implementations had the same dynamic defaults

but then instead of seeing older versions drop and replaced with new nodes (same people simply upgrading naturally)
the node count of older nodes suddenly jumps, EG version core0.12 went from 300 to 1000. where 700 are running on amazon servers.. (but were not there last week)
obviously those 700 wont be counted

there are several ways to mitigate the risks.

we need to concentrate on nodes with user settings that can allow users to run as nodes. and not just use some stupid amazon free time trial temporary spike in node count. with silly settings set.

and we especially shouldnt leave it for devs to explicitly be the controller of the node settings. it needs to be a diverse open consensus based on realistic and acceptable levels, not some fake election double counting votes from same ip ranges

lol. you cant attack the context because you know its right.
so instead, you just troll.
i would have liked to see you reply with some technical knowledge, real stats or something to back up your opinion. but all you have done is reply with a troll.

please can you take the time to just learn consensus vs bilateral split
logically instead of wasting hours trolling. if you spent just 20 minutes learning real things. you help yourself and others more.

i would prefer that you atleast learn the entire concept of bitcoin and maybe some code so you can understand the whole thing. but i thought that would be too much. so i just gather you a simple thing to learn.

but if you reply with another empty post that doesnt show your knowledge of consensus vs bilateral split. then you are only failing yourself and wasting your own time achieving nothing that will help you or bitcoin or other bitcoin users.

goodnight.

greg has wanted to split the network.. no one else..

there are over a dozen implementations. but greg wants core to be the only one.

xt didnt want to split
classic doesnt want to split
bu doesnt want to split.

again only gmaxwell and his core colleagues and interns who want to split so they can fully rule over bitcoin.

its worth you learning consensus vs bilateral splits.
the 12 diverse consensus implementations are not fighting each other. they are only fighting the corporate centralists.

the diverse consensus nodes have said they are willing to let gmaxwell build his paypal2.0 as long as gmaxwell gives up his thrown and joins consensus to keep bitcoin diverse and open without any single entity control

bitcoins ethos is not about giving power to a dev team. its about allowing nodes to consensually define the network based on majority agreement and or compromise to get to the agreement. where all nodes function without a middle/main guy leading the network

its really worth you trying to spend 10 minutes learning consensus vs bilateral fork. and understand the real debate

because a one time bump is just kicking the can down the road and then still needing to ask devs to offer more later.
oliver twist "please sir can i have some more".. then 2 years of waiting for the spoon to feed them

what would be better is even if its not an automated engine in the background
if
core, xt and classic bu, knots and other dozen implementations all had a user options page where users can set their own setting . and that setting appears either as part of their useragent or as a tx versionbit.

then nodes become independent of devs spoon feeding. and consensus can form independently

the dynamic idea is more so an automatic feature so that the even less technical user doesnt need to play around because the nodes
do it themselves. so its not to 'geeky' to use

---

as for the different versions of nodes.

there is no need for a built-in miner and all the extra pool/mining settings.. if you are just a 'operator'(user).. because there is extra things needed for pools. probably best to think about.. if your not a pool then concentrate just on learning about the version for 'operators'

but its good you are atleast trying to learn about classic core and bu, etc. rather then just getting involved in the social drama
keep it up, there is hope for you yet

more empty posts with no content.

please explain with stats, facts, technicals or atleast real detail why you are reading r/bitcoin scripts and not doing independant research to come to your own conclusions.

please explain with stats facts technicals or atleast rational reason what you think is wrong with a team that is not paid by bankers
where as you seem to want to care for the team that is funded by bankers.

can you explain in a rational manner using research why turning bitcoin corporate by going along with core. is so much better than staying diverse and open by not going with core

please ensure your reply has credible evidence.

such as i can show that gmaxwell, sipa, matt corallo, lukejr and many more devs have a banker paid salary and employment contract. (via blockstream)
i can show that CLTV and CSV are the equivelent features as 3-5 business day funds availability delay and chargebacks.

can you rationally explain your opinion, thoughts and reasons with backed up data?

you sound like a scripted troll. have you read a line of code from any implementation. or understand how bitcoin works.

seems your more emotional than rational. and it appears that you have been told to come to this forum and scream your emotions.

i get the feeling you probably have been promised that you can get rich running a LN node. and you are actually emotional that
LN in blockstream form cant work without segwit.

because from reading your emotional rants, you seem empty of any rational reason, actual facts, real stats or actual technical response.

care to add something technical, statistically reliable or factual to really back up your emotion

seems we have another script reader that has NOT done proper independent research to find the truth beyond the words he has read on r/bitcoin


actually unlimited show little support from miners(pools)
over 60% are just independently undecided either way.
under 25% decided they want segwit.
and the small amount left support BU.

dont try to tweak numbers. it makes you look worse than the usual r/bitcoin trolls who shout "LN coz' gigabytes by midnight"


actually it was gmaxwell advocating that anything not core should split... everyone refused and laughed at him because they want consensus ( a built in bitcoin feature since day one)

care to actually research next time.
ok ok, ill be gentle

lol though last year i actually detested 'realbitcoin' as much as he detests me. but my reasons was more to do with his rants last year of NXT being bitcoin 2.0 (facepalm i know right)

but it seems if you give people time, logic provails and they start to understand and accept bitcoins real ethos and real mechanisms. and understand what bitcoin is really about. and learn from their mistakes

but to raise a point 'realbitcoin' made because i dont think it was emphasised enough

"cheap fees" - is a matter of prospective

though im in the UK and although i have many bitcoin and my average btc transaction is about £300($360) and so the fee of

(70sat/byte 450byte=0.000315) ~25p(30cent)  its less than 1%. so seems cheap to me.
to me yes.

but i can see passed my own personal situation.
i see that 30cent tx fee is not cheap to people in cuba, africa, asia. where that 30cent. to the very people that would want and need something like bitcoin most. (the unbanked) would see bitcoins utility as costing them upto 6 hours of labour, just for the tx fee.

we need to look passed our own greed(hoping we can make income being an LN hop node) or personal status(living in a developed country).. and instead think about bitcoins ethos, of
not having permissioned fund holdings,
not having fee's/penalties hurting the poorest parts of the world.
not having settlement features that lock funds and revoke funds to just do exactly the same as fiat banks.

the only excuse i see for having these LN nodes is the empty doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight wont work". where as the reality is that bitcoin adoption is slower and more natural that would take a couple decades to get to say 5% world daily utility. not 100% daily utility by midnight.

we should not halt onchain natural growth using fear. just to push bitcoin ethos breaking services that are not essential today(not everyone trades more then 2 a day/week/month to see utility of LN)

LN's niche market is for gamblers, daytraders and faucet raiders. not every day folks who may only make 2 transactions a fortnight. 1 for groceries another for rent.

no problem

if only your project wasnt just converting bitcoin instantly to fiat. i would have thrown a few in your direction..
but my spidey sense was tingling too much.

lets hope next year you make a subsidiary where the african community get bitcoin for doing some part of your projects to get bitcoin circulating in africa... then my interest would peak without the spidey senses tingling. and start to see something really inspiring

sgwit doesnt offer faster confirmations..
segwit doesnt offer much but temporary empty gestures of moving forward.

segwit does offer a preliminary tweak to bitcoin to then enable permissioned transactions. (which effectively end up feeling to averag joe like they are just using paypal/banks)

^ here right here ^

thats what got my attention initially and peaked my interest
i THOUGHT your business was doing something revolutionary.. like paying installeres in bitcoin. letting the school earn bitcoin with the excess electric it doesnt use. where that electric 'revenue' was in bitcoin form to allow the school to spend locally and drive bitcoin as a usable currency in africa.

turns out as soon as bitcoin is sent.. its converted to fiat.. and ends up being just a fiat project that happens to accept bitcoin..
where the school never touches bitcoin.. and the initial american investor wont get his full bitcoin back in 20 years.

its like i thought i seen a spark of something useful.. but wanted to dig deep and test it out.
but the more i dug things fell apart.

all i see now is a fiat project that has a 'we accept bitcoin' payment method for convenience.
something just didnt seem right..

im guessing you were just overselling the sales pitch.

---

separate note:

only 8kw an hour. (based on 12 hours light)

nope.
because that means for upto 12 months months the community has to run team A software to get patch X enabled
then the community has to jump over to team B to get Y enabled.
then the community has to jump over to team C to get Z enabled.

however
having ALL THE TEAMS allowing ALL proposals/patches.. means no node flip flopping or 'favourite brand and im sticking to it' civil wars.

because its no longer about "favourite brand" .. its just about code. because you can get xyz in A..  AND in B...
none of this drama of everyone jump to brand A for six months.. everyone jump to brand B for 6 months.

its all the same.. ALL nodes could/should flag X,Y,Z at same time. and whenever they get to 95% it activates.
which also removes the wait in the queue delay tactics of 'we wont do Z untill 2019. because 2018 is dedicated to Y and 2017 is dedicated to X

all proposals can be flagged simultaneously(concurrently) and not staggered(consecutively) by ALL nodes
and they spark into life when 95% is achieved.

---

imagine it this way.
you want a well cooked Steak, chunky fries, and some salad on the side.

logically.
you wont want to go to a steakhouse to get the steak. then drive to a chunky fries takeaway to get the fries.. and then drive to a salad grocer..

you want to go to one of 20 restaurants that offer it all on one plate..

secondly.
you wont want to sit at such a restaurant and instead of just asking for "a well cooked Steak, chunky fries, and some salad on the side."
you begin asking for the steak.. and then get interupted by the waitress and told to wait for the steak to cook before she takes the rest of your order.
the steak gets cooked. and then as soon as you say the word chunky fries, she interupts you again and tells you to wait for the fries to cook..
then when cooked.. you then mention the salad

logically you want to be able to make all your choices in one go. and be able to enjoy your meal when its prepared.

---

however yakamoto.. the idea of downloadable 'patches' / addons. or even just a built in 'settings->options' window to manually change things.. in a user friendly manner for average joe would be of benefit. again to not need to have the 'band camp' games

so this was my initial point from the start.

its not a bitcoin project.

its just a fiat kickstarter

where is the proposal of expanding bitcoins circulation in africa.

your initial proposal was wrote that its not just another fiat project. but a project to grow bitcoins utility in africa and get people using bitcoin more.
i was envisioning that you used the solar panels for mining.
i was envisioning that you paid the labourers installing the solar panels in bitcoin.
i was envisioning that the solar panels done something bitcoin related.

i then envisioned that someone investing 1btc would eventually get back 2btc after 20 year lease.

but none of those are what you are doing.
you have yet to show how its a real bitcoin enabling proposal and not just a 'we accept bitcoin' payment method

something just didnt seem right.

i tried to keep my sceptical side away. and get you to re-evaluate your business plan as it just didnt seem right.
then when you kept replying. more things started to fall apart. where even now your limiting how involved you are in bitcoin by saying as soon as its handed to you its converted to fiat.

its just not sitting right. either you over emphasised bitcoins involvement instead of just saying "we accept bitcoin" or something is not right about the whole proposal

the reason your topic struck my attention was for the same reasons as the 'victorycoin' guy. i just dont politely introduce myself.

or instead of having
team A wants X
team B wants Y

and have the war and conflict

have
Team A.13.x release
Team A.13.y release
Team A.13.xy release

Team B.13.x release
Team B.13.y release
Team B.13.xy release

then let the communty not have to choose a "team" and just base their desires on code.. including code where all proposals are included
that way if people hate team B. then they can still either eat the cake, have the cake .. or even have the cake and eat it with team A

remember there is a difference between RATIONED choice.. and RATIONAL choices

dont worry, the OP's proposal was never about using solar to maintain the network (mining)
dont worry, the OP's proposal was never about bitcoin to bring it into the circulation of african people
dont worry, the OP's proposal was never about bitcoin used as remittance.

the reality is that the remittance is done inhouse by solar exchanges luna exchange.. with the 'gimmick' that its using bitcoin as a 'rail' simply by showing the remittance as a bitcoin balance on luna's MySQL database for minutes

as usual C B above is just reading a r/bitcoin script instead of looking at the actual "event"

it was a non event
a simple reject.

what was overdramatic.. was cores response. banning nodes at the sight of a simple reject.
funny part is without banning nodes no one would have seen it as "an event" and instead seen it as just another reject that happens daily, yep even to core.

but nah, core needed an excuse to ban nodes. core needed to cause drama.
kind of smelled like desperation..

the part i found most funniest. is that what it actually proves (if you ignore the core aftershock dramatics) is that consensus works.
the block was rejected in seconds.. event over.

look at october 2016.. china joined the IMF SDR..
ill let you research the rabbit hole from there..

hint

hyperledger is not just one ledger. the IMF audits over them, but then splits off to upto 200 subledgers/smart contract networks/pegged altcoins for each national currency, which then split off to a few more sidechains/smart contract networks for different industries... like a pyramid or upside down tree branching out.

bitcoin CAN scale onchain..
but you first need to grab the dooms day of "needs 7bill capacity by midnight".. squeeze it, stamp on it and then burn it.
wipte it from your mind. cleanse your soul. and then now you have an open mind
replace that space in your mind with rational natural growth over a couple decades of only rational number of say 5% of world population.. not 100%.

relax 5% is still a big number.. it puts bitcoin in top 5 "nations" of the world.. its just more rational. and not "the new world order single currency by midnight" crappy rhetoric

then you will see the difference