1. do not have the aim of your "meetings" just to gather 'investors' with the only goal to push bitcoin to $2k by january 2018..

2. to take bitcoin mainstream. requires
a) get core to release their barbaric hindering of growth by delaying onchain scaling, and instead get real scaling happening rather than their centralised commercial services due to onchain hindered scaling which they are causing.
b) make bitcoin as easy to use and secure to use as a NFC smart watch that only sends out public data (public keys and signed tx's), not private keys
c) remember bitcoin is just code it has no legs to walk up to merchants/shops. has no voice to talk to merchants/shops. PEOPLE need to get involved
d) do not expect rich investors to fly to your local town to get your local shop to accept bitcoin. if YOU want your local shop to accept bitcoin YOU ask for it.
e) if everyone follows point (d) then everyone can help get bitcoin more mainstream in their own area

3) to summarise points 1 and 2. concentrate on letting bitcoin grow. rather than the short term greedy mindset of price spikes and pump and dumps

lol,

please return to the logical open mind you retained for a few months. seems you are wearing the core/blockstream defender cap again.
your suggesting gmaxwell is not part of core?

what are you saying, he done a hearn? and no longer coding any bitcoin code, nor acts as a CTO of devs programming bitcoin implementations?
is that your suggestion that he is totally gone and no longer involved with bitcoin?

DAO was a 'bilateral hard fork'
google --oppose-dao-fork

also the difference between soft and hard is simply who gets to vote.
there are still orphan risks and split risks of doing both hard and soft
core however only want to talk about base case scenario of soft and worse case scenario of hard.. rather than the rational best case of both and worse case of both

softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/intent of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/intent 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/intent of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/intent 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

corrected this guy due to his lack of research. seems he is a script reader. not a fact seeker

the reason..
me and gleb have alluded to but not yet bluntly pointed out.

is that when a middle man holds the bags of funds. not much of it ends up actually doing anything in reality but being handled by the middleman.

the middle man will show lots of pictures they googled and lots of sob stories of needs for funding. and they will happily send you mass produced volumes of paperwork showing gratitude.

but when it comes to questioning the end goal and investigating the end goal........ silence begins to be the middlemans answer.
.. followed by anger, insults and threats as they realise the last year of preparing their mony raising starts falling apart

bitcoin has IPv6 utility, but.
but then we have blockstream trying to act as ISP's only offering users ipv4 and sidetrack them with bad compression and other features, while the ISP(blockstream) is utilising real IPv6 concepts for commercial banking networks. until they are ready to unveil the new ipv6 currency known as hyperledger

gleb, i like them to atleast dig a hole for themself first.

let them back track and change their story to see how desparate they are to sell utopia.
well ice to eskimo's
well i mean sand to people in the desert.
oops
i mean silica to africans.

its like a bad episode of "the shark tank" or "dragons den" seeing people with a bad and obvious shady business plans, still invited to the tv show to talk about the shady business purely to get to see the business plan get ripped apart

i know i jumped the gun on the other topic. so i guess you deserve to jump the gun here.
but sometimes people need to learn from these unethical utopian hypes. so that people are aware of what they are being fed

1) bitcoin tx fee's are more than an hours labour.. so no 'nano fees.
2) if you were to use LN then LN transactions(smart contracts) of nano fee's are NOT transparent as they are offchain. plus they require permissioned contracts which would require 20 year LOCKS on the funds..
   if you were to publicise the private LN payments. thats the same as just showing a mysql database trade history, so not real transparence just a vail of transparency.
3) smart contracts are permissioned payments. meaning the investors funds are locked in where the luna exchange becomes the bank manager (LN hub)

---

separate issue:

ok.. so. bitcoin is $950 in africa today.

so a $1k 1kw solar panel is 1.05btc~ (rough number for easy display)

so some investor hands you 1.05btc~ to buy a solar sell ..
you convert it to fiat and buy a solar panel for $1k

it gets installed at lets say some Tyre ltd company in africa..
and then Tyre ltd then pays back $100 a year for the lease (your website says 10% returns(8% initial after fees))

so imagine its 2018. bitcoin is then $2k.. Tyre hands luna $100 or 0.05btc..
so imagine its 2019. bitcoin is then $2.5k.. Tyre hands luna $100 or 0.04btc..
so imagine its 2018. bitcoin is then $3k.. Tyre hands luna $100 or 0.033btc..

as you can see. after 10 years the investor will not get his 1.05btc back(10x10%=100% return).. although technically he gets $1000 of 'value back' in btc form its not the same as 1.05btc.
hense my first comment about why would an investor hand over a good asset .. when the obvious conclusion is its better to burn fiat..

---

secondly.
this still does not explain why lets say the american investor paying in btc.. is then helping africa become BTC friendly.

after all those wanting to move Zar from one african country to another, are just going to deposit Zar into your 'Luna' exchange and the family else where will receive the wages in Zar. the bit in the middle is just your internal gimmick of taking zar from one person and handing it to another, but mascaraded in the middle to look like bitcoin is involved in the blind hope that by making it appear that you are playing with bitcoin it will absolve you of any financial conduct regulations.. (it wont)

your exchange in the middle 'pretending' to be a rail. is not actually a rail as the deposits and withdrawals and swaps would be in zar in the end. because both sides are just physically touching Zar.

you have yet to show where the BITCOIN utility is.(reason for african citizens to keep bitcoins.. or even able to hold bitcoins without an LN smart contract)

i say that not as a naive learner but as someone that has seen dozens of projects in the past and as someone who loves to run real life scenarios to see where the actually utility of business plans/niches are.

you really are just playing gimmicks with how your business is structured. so either you need to reword your business plan. or you need to just go burn some fiat investors instead.

it was disregarded in 3 seconds.. a new block would not have built ontop if it..
if it stupidly did. then the reject would "officially" be named an orphan event in your eyes because the reject becomes the parents of the child and the parent and child still end up being cast aside.

WAKE UP

stop making mountains out of mole hills about events that didnt happen and then you meandering into fake narratives of if's and maybes..
. especially when the real problem of the real non event.. which you worry about concerting a bilateral split, would have been caused only by CORES REACTION to the mole hill. by banning the nodes to make the mountain... not due simply to a reject/bad block/invalid block/orphan.

rejects occur alot. orphans happen too. but CORE banning NODES is what would cause bilateral forks.
however sticking to consensus would have just dropped the dodgy block and thats it.. no drama.. gone, forgot about, life moves on without it.. non event

CORE have set the 'banscore' biasedly high for this event. but its funny that core then went and blamed it on non-core nodes for why CORE had so much biased in such a non event.


both luke Jr and Gmaxwell are devising the worse methods of dynamic block implementation.. maybe not for the intention of breaking the chain to make a point.. but to just to scare people from wanting to accept them as the ruse to then pretend people dont want dynamic blocks..

EG here is a banana, but if i wipe it under my armpit after a sweaty game of tennis, i can make a banana lover decline wanting a banana and then tell the world banana's are now bad because banana lovers refuse to eat banana's.

Gmaxwell wants to mess with the block reward and luke wants to make blocks shrink.. both are silly and are going to fail the user desire.
lets delve into lukes idea.
if all nodes can accept 1.5mb blocks.. they by default wont reject a block of 0.75mb or an 'empty block'.. because bitcoins consensus in that activation is that anything under 1.5mb is acceptable. so there is no need to dowgrade nodes.
much like todays reality we dont need to downgrade nodes consensus rules if a pool decides to create 'empty blocks'

lets delve into gmaxwells desire of an idea.
if pools X wants to increase 25% the pool C makes block with 75% reward. and the the other 25% is handed over to the next block solver.
firstly messing with the block reward is dangerous, so using it as a ploy. makes a dynamic block more dangerous to get people confident about

but not to due with lack of desire for dynamic blocks, but for HOW they are implemented and what penalties/downsides the core devs decide to add to scare their sheep. its obvious even now what their insidious plan is.

like they said 'look the community asked for 2mb or even 4mb.. we are offering them 4mb weight and they are declining' - fully aware of why the community is declining 4mb weight.. but core devs not being ethical to admit the reason for not wanting 4mb of empty gesture

here is the funny part
you have said nothing original. you repeat what others have said. you dont even care who says it.
and it has been a few days since you yourself were told to research. and all you manage to do is repeat other peoples words.

i see nothing new and you are just trolling.

for your own sake atleast spend a few minutes reading the truth and not just reading r/bitcoin scripts. or copying other people.

p.s
i dont even run a BU node. i have my own
funnier part is icebreaker tried to sideline me into classic camp, then xt camp last year.. rather then admit the truth and just realise i simply hate blockstreams corporate paid backing and core paid devs employee contracted terms to meet certain code/commercial service objectives to make financial returns for their investors.

pretty much a shame that you are wanting blockstream to be king..
where as i prefer diverse USER consensus with no dev control.

to add another direction to the craig wright as a satoshi fall guy social misdirection drama.

ill add this name as the fourth musketeer, which i presume cough*media*cough are investigating as part of their circle jerk of their own rumour creation

Joseph Vaughn Perling


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE
this video is after craig ran off to the UK. but before he allowed gizmodo and wired to publish his tipoff.. in essense this is craig wrights attempt to get his name out there before he unlocks the media storm.

then looking at Joseph Vaughn Perling
google can see JVP saying he met cough*satoshi*cough many times.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/satoshi-saga-continues-tulip-trust-trustee-expected-to-appear-by-september-says-joseph-vaughnperling-1462467803/

(im facepalming and laughing at the same time)

sounds familiar.
oh i forgot you are in the r/bitcoin tribe that loves to read and repeat. rather then learn and think independently.

time for you stop rehearsing lines,

i understand the terms. i just dont go batshit crazy when talking generally.

take for instance achowe himself.. deeming a 3 second reject as a fork..
that is achowe doing a grammar boo boo missuse of buzzwording.

infact achowe went sooo deep he wanted to take a zero drama non-event such as a 3second reject. to make it into some 'BU caused a bilateral fork'. that he forgot that core closed the connections to make it bilateral rather than leave the connections open to stick with consensus

but it is good to see the only argument left to sustain this non event, is the grammar nazi argument.

so i find it funny that you think that this non event deserves its own r3cked topic all because you are a grammar nazi, as your only ammo to defend your corporate pals.

gmaxwll hates it when i dont
call his confidential payment codes, 'confidential Pedersen commitment'
call an intentional split, 'bilateral split'

so forgetting blockstreams buzzword anal desires. and instead thinking real world scenario use of words so common people can get the general context without having to decypher buzzwords

an orphan is not just where the parent is killed and the good child ends up being sidelined and alone, forgotton about.
an orphan is where the parent themselves choose to giveup the child, dont put their names on the birth certificate and instead choose to adopt another child.

so the child in both circumstances is an orphan. because it has no ties to a parent. and doesnt continue the family tree legacy.

a child can be an orphan whether the parent is alive or dead


i fully understand the terms. i just choose to translate the nazi buzzword's into common tongue.
for instance if i decided to become a medical doctor. i would refuse to tell a patient they had a 'acute myocardial infarction' to sound smart. i would instead say their heart stopped for 30 seconds. because its better to tell the person what actually happened rather than sound like a smart ass

oh well enjoy your social campaigns

the IMF is already reinventing money.
it wont be using bitcoin.

fiat and bitcoin dont and wont mix.
bitcoin should not let itself become fiat 2.0 either, otherwise no lessons are learned if bitcoin just turned into fiat2.0

the new IMF SDR arrangements which they added china to in october (causing the second UK <-> US decline of 2016 (first one related to brexit in june))

IMF are going with hyperledger. which then has sidechains for the national currencies to sub audit.
then those national sidechains,, sidechain off for banking treasury, insurance, commodities, stocks, shares, etc

like branching out like a tree.. but upside down (or an octopus with many more legs and many more suckers attached to those legs
with the IMF at the main branch/top of pyramid/brain of the octopus, being the main auditor/arbitrator of all the sidechains.

satoshi wont need to worry about governments hating bitcoin, otherwise charlie lee and Butterin would be locked up
id say satoshi's worse fear is people thinking he has 1m coins making him nearly a billionaire, and suddenly having strangers from around the plant begging him for donations or trying to become his best friend while touching up his pocket hoping to find a hardware wallet with 20,000 privkeys

or
all the drug dealers that lost out in silkroad or all the gamblers that lost out in dodgy dice games and exchang hats threatening him to pay them, something for their loses

i completely agree with danny hamilton. including the hard/expensive lesson for BU to learn.

but technically.. they never actually got the funds in the first place. so its just like all blocks... there is only one winner, and BU simply didnt win

and the only knitpick you can find is that i over used the buzzword orphan..
aww you may consider an orphan to be strictly related to a bad parent being taken away leaving the child to be lost in the system and rejected as a consequence, even if the child is a good child..

i consider all rejections where having a parent or not, whether the child is good or bad ends up as the same result.
ends up with the same result
in laymans:
lost and rejected, cast aside. in the dustbin, thrown away, disguarded. bye bye gone!
(and dont even bother replying there is no dustbin in bitcoin.. )

your just going to nd up looking pedantic again

orphans/rejects do not cause altcoins. orphans/rejects sort themselves out in the end.
what causes altcoins is when nodes are triggered to ban other nodes to not see a orphan/reject. which then leads to two nodes seeing or not seeing the same data.


happens more often then you think
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

like your pretending this has not happened before.
blocks over 1mb have been rejected before now. but blockstram fans are over dramatizing it to make it sound like BU could have caused a bilateral split, when infact it was cores heavy hand that went a step too far to possibly cause one. rather then just reject the block and move one

need i bring up sipa's 2013 DB boo boo..where core bugged out when blocks went over 500kb.. oops i better not mention a blockstream paid dev's boo boo's

1. orphans/rejects happen often but you dont see blockstream orgasming when those orphans/rejects are based on bad core code
2. the block got rejected in 3 seconds .. end of drama.. but core nodes were set to ban nodes in such an event (over dramatics)
3. this block rejected, like other orphans/rejects proves that consensus and validation mechanism works
4. this proves that altcoins are not created just due to a slightly larger block
5. this proves that all the core rhetorical and scripted doomsdays are wrong.

people need to realise that within 3 seconds the block got rejected. orphaned off.. thrown away, put in the trash, not used,  gone

meaning consensus works. bitcoin is still in one piece.

the network will only validate and accept blocks over 1mb when there is a majority.
so this is actually a positive by squashing all the fake doomsdays of altcoins and splits by BU.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

the real funny part is, although bitcoins built in mechanism from 2009 works as it should..
the core blockstream fans fear consensus, soo much they actually manually and automatically banned nodes AFTER bitcoins built in code done what it should, thus now core are the risk of causing an intentional bilateral split.. by avoiding the natural orphan/validation mechanism by ignoring nodes instead of just rejecting blocks.

here is what would happen is they didnt ban nodes and someone passed them the same block

meaning its already been marked as dead, so dont handle it. IN THE SAME SECOND
thus no need to block nodes. as bitcoins consensus already pushed it to the side as a non issue within the same second

ha ha ha. im laughing

ofcourse gmaxwell instead of highlighting that consensus worked and issue resolved in 3 seconds where that block is automaticaly flagged as invalid if picked up again by another node..is do nothing more within a second.. (meaning he didnt highlight what consensus does). but instead orgasmed at the opportunity that his auto ban settings in core intentionally banned the nodes.. thus making a bilateral split possible due to core ignorance and use of an auto node ban feature.
(desperation i smell in gmaxwells pants)


he kind of back tracked after to half explain consensus, where he said (not verbatim) 'an SPV would see the block until a new block officially pushes it away'.
although spv clients also rejected it in SECONDS using consensus without having to ban nodes. but maxwell didnt highlight the no need to ban peers aspect..


gmaxwell is desparate to cause an altcoin. he is even celebrating it

desperate man, afraid of consensus that much he is willing to bilateral split the network.. as shown by earlier evidence of even wanting to bilateral split the network just to force segwit in


summary
CORE can cause a bilateral split by banning BU. not the other way round.
there is and was no need to ban the nodes.. bitcoins validation mechanism took care of the block but core went one stage to far banning nodes..
desperate move blockstream.

the rule is not 10 minutes!!!

its a hopeful 2016 blocks in 2 weeks

which could be a few blocks as quick as 2 minutes and a few blocks as slow as over an hour.. its just luck..
as long as it all adds up to an average of 2016 blocks a fortnight.

which then for those who hate maths.. means AVERAGE of MAYBE 10 minutes a block
not hard rule of 10 minutes a block

the hard rule is the 2016 block a fortnight target. the 10 minute thing is just layman unofficial conversation piece