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

1. this proves that consensus and orphans work
2. this proves that altcoins are not created
3. this proves that all the 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 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

you need many TEAMS

by the way core can be interfered with.. go ask the core devs where their blockstream funds came from.
go as cores unpaid interns if they are being loyal in the hopes of getting paid by blockstream one day.

bitcoin needs diversity.
if you think bitcoin only needs ONE TEAM then you have already eaten from the centralist controlled spoon

1. jailing people does nothing. you cant stop bitcoin by taking a dev away. you change bitcoin by bribing a dev to change it for the worse. it has happened
2. protests happened on trumps inauguration.. trump still became president
3. protests happened against wars in middle east.. the bombs and wars still happened
4. protests happened against UK gov selling of parts of NHS, and other puplic services.. they still got sold off.

protests dont work

5. saying do not fear and at worse do a protest. is like saying let bad things happen and then stand in the street having a tantrum. .. a bit late!!

strikes - avoid using/working for a service that is doing bad things
get personal - research what the actual code does, dont just read the glossy scripted roadmap imagery/empty gesture promise leaflets
dont sit in the corner - dont sit on your hand while kissing someones ass out of fear of causing ripples

put it this way..

if fee's were $1 a tx..
bitcoin users will hate using bitcoin, but it would only earn bitcoin pools ~$2k-$2.5k

pools still do not see that tx fee's are an income. they just see it as a bonus... in short, they dont care much
their income is still the blockreward which gets them $10k+

those blindly adoring the idea of sidechains(altcoins) and offchain(corporate permissioned services) dont care about
bitcoin fee's
they only care about making money offering these side services by charging less than a bitcoin tx fee (under $1). in fact the higher the onchain fee, the more income these future hub managers can get by offering a slight discount.

those blindly adoring the idea of sidechains(altcoins) and offchain(corporate permissioned services) dont care about
onchain capacity
they only care about making money offering these side services by offering more 'payments' to get repeat income. infact the lower the onchain capacity. the more income these future hub managers can get by locking people in for longer.

core are drumming up the false proposition that LN node users can make money acting as LN hop managers. but the reality is users will
avoid the hop concept to avoid paying for each hop. and instead go for the HUB concept to save on fee's. and guess who gets to be the HUB..


if you ever see someone talk about "conservative" (the new 2016-2017 core promotional buzzword) )they are not talking about protecting or strengthening bitcoin. they are talking about
conning to serve private representatives...
anyone living in england knows how "conservatives" run things. selling out our countries assets to the highest bidder to let it be run by private companies

as for anyone that wants independent control but fears using BU. then change the settings of your favourite brand and release it as another diverse release that can in the future allow you to change the blocksize buffer without needing devs to spoon feed you settings they desire

BTCC is funded by Barry silbert of DCG
Blockstream is funded by Barry silbert of DCG

DGC and blockstream are involved in the bankers hyper ledger

they get enough FIAT, they dont care much for bitcoin.

why do you think  BTCC is offering free fee's for services (until regulators got involved) bcause bitcoin fee's are meaningless to them

im just saying bitcoin needs PEOPLE to push their local merchants for bitcoin acceptance
im just saying PEOPLE need to be more informed about what is available in their local area.
im just saying PEOPLE need to not require this forum as the central point. but instead know where locally they can get the information, tools, services and help they need.

bitcoin needs to expand its diversity in information, utility and accessability.

if peoples only answers are to go to this forum or use a debit card. then bitcoin is not really reaching its full potential, its instead locking its potential down into something that can turn out to be as useful as facebook credits. (not good).

everyone should be pushing to get bitcoin more open and more diverse

when posts are telling the guy he can hand it to users in this forum..

.. it should dawn on people..

.. either most people dont know of many real merchants that accept bitcoin, or they themselves have not thought about bitcoin beyond this forum.
which goes to show bitcoin is not ready to go mainstream

bitcoin really needs to be at a point where people dont need to ask "where can i spend it" or have issues with conversion

overstock.com

just found the website...

seems the business plan is

(A)african location asks for panels and agrees to pay the lease for 20 years..
(I)world investors kickstart the project paying for the panels..

(A)african location pays 'sun exchange' the lease
(S)sunexchange pays back world investors.

hmm.. i see even less bitcoin circulation involved then this topic is 'promoting' and more so just bitcoin being used to buy panels.

unless the OP is proposing a side project thats new and not yet part of the sunexchange business model. and thus still a concept, then i dont see where bitcoin circulates around africa
eg money flow of current websites offering
(Africa) ->  (SunEx) < - > (Investor)
(Africa) ->  (SunEx) < - > (Investor)
(Africa) ->  (SunEx) < - > (Investor)

i dont see where (Africa) gets bitcoin circulating locally

yes your a middle man.. an exchange i got that part straight away..

but..


that suggests you want people to hand you bitcoin.. which raised my sceptical mind..
where because you are not a solar panel manufacturer. the actual purchase of solar panels is done in FIAT.
hence me thinking promoting a kickstarter asking for bitcoin is a waste of an asset,.. because its converted to fiat to buy the equipment.

so i replied its better to ask for fiat to buy solar panels.
and when the electric revenue from the solar panels is returned. you then swap it for bitcoin to pay the land owners of the solar panel locations.

to which i now see you already do offer fiat payment. which you should concentrate on as the 'burning of value initial loss of investment'.. not bitcoin

the bits i found iffy were when it seemed you were asking for asset rich bitcoin to be wasted to buy a fiat sold solar panel. and as i said
this can be sidestepped by asking for fiat to burn at the purchasing of the panel from a solar manufacturer.

and then
the interesting part begins..
when electric is produced. and 'put into the grid' your revenue can then be converted to bitcoin for the african community to spend on groceries and such

but your still having to deal with the fee war vs LN permissioned dilemma surrounding spending bitcoin, which is less appealing than m-pesa.


EG

A. solar panel purchase.. concentrate on burning fiat to purchase panels
B. convert fiat 'ongrid revenue' to bitcoin to be passed around (btc put into circulation while you burn the fiat, not other way round)
C. sort out a micropayment mechanism that is not permissioned contracts and without a large fee. to ensure utility in africa

1. taking bitcoin (which has good asset value) just to convert to fiat(which has no asset value) to buy a panel. makes no sense.
    you dont hold the bitcoin anymore, the donator has lost a valuable asset. etc etc. but.....
    taking fiat (which has no asset value) just to buy a panel. makes sense.

then (the part that does spark your interest and the interest of bitcoiners)

2. when the fiat revenue of the electric makes returns. you then buy bitcoin. and distribute the bitcoin to the landowners with solar panels.

but as i said. your still stuck with the fee war vs permissioned LN contract dilemma of bitcoins spending utility for low wage 'microtransactions' which m-pesa solves far more cheaply.

so that why i said for point one. to do a fiat kickstarter. to get the panels. and then sort out the bitcoin circulation/utility dilemma

so your not looking for a self sufficient economy.. your looking for bitcoin donations to buy solar panels.
in short get people to hand you BTC so you can convert it to fiat, and the buy solar panels. which then are placed in africa so that communities can get power.

hmm.. better off doing a fiat kick starter.
unless you find a way for the solar panels to be productive to self fund their own expansion, you wont get far. and it no longer becomes about bitcoin aswell if the production isnt producing bitcoin to self fund expansion(you admit its not about mining).

i at first wanted to put aside the 'donation' requests of $1000 per panel beg, and instead handle what your wrote as if it was actually a utopian idea of self sufficiency.. but now its not about self sufficiency or bitcoin production.. it brings me back to my first sceptical opinion of just a donation beg.

might be worth you trying it in the fiat donation/charity websites.. after all fiat is literally materialised out of nothing and thrown about aimlessly this day.

1. bitcoin mining costs are not an electric concern.. its the ASIC price itself that kills off ROI
    one asic costing a non asic manufacturer = $2100+ (plus means delivery PSU ventilation not included)
    one asic costing a asic manufacturer = $0
    this is because for every asic they sell to the world the asic manufacturer keeps 2+ asics and spare fiat to pay electric, wages and other costs.
    electric cost to get a btc in china $225, $450 america and $900 UK. but america, UK and africa would also need to stump up $2100+ for the asic itself.

2. if it costs $1000 for a solar panel to power an asic and $2100+ for the asic itself. the ROI required is well over $3k. sorry but its not going to work out.

3. african will fry the asic's, or atleast require 2x$1000 solar investment to cover the ventilation costs aswell as the asic. making ROI requirement ~$4k

4. african labour costs (minimum wage) are also low, which due to bitcoins fee war, has priced africa out of seeing utility in bitcoin

5. to raise point 4 in more detail. if you will rebuttle the fee war by talking about LN. .. LN is permissioned contracts with penalties and requiring second party consent. which makes it less appealing and less utility than M-pesa

6. most africans can get a small solar panel enough to give 5volts of electric to a mobile phone. and use M-pesa. africa is not suitable or desirable for a mining farm

sorry to be blunt, but the utopian dream of the OP, and the reality of utility in africa are on opposite sides

gleb, did you also remember the original gizmodo/wired "tip off" was from craig wright himself. asking all the media to sign a NDA until he was out of australia and in the uk before release

and craig wright done the same again later on to another bunch of people when he done the signature fail reveal

as well as the bit inbetween where craig wright was 'introduced' to the community by a select few people before anyone knew him.

(even back then i thought it all seemed like orchestrated and fake media drama)


(spoiler: craig himself was the tipster)

all because craig wright was under legal pressure due to questions over his empty tulip trust and was being harassed by australian government to prove its value. (due to the dmorgan ltd saga of aus$54m of government funding)
he needed to get the australian government off his back by trying to suggest his tulip trust actually held real assets(it doesnt). and also create yet another business backed by the (in reality empty) tulip trust

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/aussie-technologists-are-opening-the-worlds-first-bitcoin-based-bank-this-year-2014-2

here is wired's recanting their belief craig was satoshi
https://www.wired.com/2015/12/new-clues-suggest-satoshi-suspect-craig-wright-may-be-a-hoaxer/

actually satoshi made bitcoin but it wasnt until later that
0.00000001 got 'branded' a satoshi and
0.0000001 got branded a hal

in honor of satoshi and hal, by the community in 2011

then much later
0.000001 got branded a bit
and people even now are trying to give nick names to the other decimal points

as it just seems like there is an ulterior motive for this trainwreck to be so desperate to get people to follow and applaud him. it just seems too desperate to just be about medium.com clickbait

i hope you read passed the glossy features page and read the how and why. and technicals involved. fully understanding it before proclaiming it as great

until you learn that mimblewimble "managers" get to move funds into different blocks so they can mix funds about without your express consent. and the 'hope' they put funds back into your address after playing around.. to then prune off the 'spent' blocks. because your funds are then hopefully in newblocks under your address again

im just glad they are not considering it for bitcoin and just going to play with it on a sidechain

yep many of the devs are dropping their ethical code hats and instead reaching for their richboy club jackets.
it all started changing in 2013-2014.
less actual code rules to protect bitcoin but more features to cause economic utility to degrade under the guise of security and utility, purely to sway the argument that bitcoin cant grow.. while strangely suggesting that a sidechain alt can grow.

EG - explaining like your 5
billy bitcoin cant drive down the his own street because road developers have been speaking with officials and have put a 10mph speed limit on the billy's road. and smeared frightening posters on the street to scare people into thinking that car crashes will happen if billy and his neighbours sped up even at a safe small speed increase.

but the road developers built a second road, exactly the same that allows sammy sidechain and people who pay a fee, can drive as fast as they like on this other road.
same tarmac. same twists and turns in the streets. but higher speed limits.

so while sammy sidechain and neighbours use their road. the road developers want to inform billy bitcoin that all residents should not ask other road developers increase the speed limit. but instead to move people out the street and into the leased accommodation of sammy sidechains street.

the other option is to get billy bitcoins street residents to put their children into foster care where the parents can only see the kids once a month, blaming the need of a speed limit on the children

yet sammy sidechain street, exactly same as billy bitcoin street becomes the main route through town and the children can play in the road because there is no actual issues with the roads.

soon enough sammy sidechain starts charging people to return/visit billy bitcoin street, making it cost money to use billy bitcoin street. so that the value of property declines on billy bitcoin street and gains value on sammy sidechain street. even though the properties were like-for-like in the beginning.

now people in billy bitcoin street want to move out to where the higher value property can be sold. and so they move into sammy sidechain street.
exchanging their 1 bitcoin bedroom property for a 1sidechain bedroom property. which gives them more value.

no way would they dare return to billy bitcoin street now. and billy bitcoin street becomes a derelict wasteland

^
wrote as if the reader was 5, to show the future intentions of these corporate paid devs

the idea of a trusted system is what a hardware wallet meant to be.. not needing internet or a computer.
as soon as you introduce the internet and requirement of downloading a browser extension or bitcoin client. its less than 100% trusted

the next gen hardware wallets should be that the privkey is locked to a inaccessable data source. and just receives public keys via NFC and sends out signed tx's via NFC.

if you need to reset it. you do it from an offline system. not via a browser extension.