Amen. anyone who does not get this does not get bitcoin.

You are legend?

Not in my book brother.

Look, any faggot who puts on a pink tutu and knee pads is only getting down there for one thing: to suck dick.  This Gleb guy is a poof of the highest order.  I can tell you that.  

After a while, you forget to eat and start resembling Lindsay Lohan

@franky1

BU is basically a completely separate fork that has nothing to do with bitcoin core.
If the majority of miners, nodes, exchanges, wallets decide to use BU instead of core then BU is the new bitcoin.
This however is most likely never going to happen since a large group of people, miners, developers,etc… do not support BU.( that’s probably what you refer as consensus)

However if someone published the segwit core code with a 2mb anonymously, then the miners are most likely to show their support for this version because that’s basically what they want.

Both XT and classic didn’t get miner support because they didn’t have unanimous support . [neither] does Segwit today.
Segwit+2mb pretty much has unanimous support, even the most hard core CORE crowd would support it, and the BU camp is just whining because core don’t want to compromise .

The problem we have now is not how we should scale , but it is who will control bitcoin in the future. The only way you can get rid of the politics is for someone to anonymously publish code that everyone wants. You will be surprised by how much support such code would have, especially in these uncertain times.

imagine the network had 55 nodes. for easy display purposs of 5500

and the acceptable node tolerances(user settings) were all collated and put into order
1.0mb, 1.5mb, 1.5mb, 2.0mb, 2.3mb, 2.5mb, 2.6mb, 2.7mb, 2.8mb, 2.9mb, 3.0mb,
3.0mb, 3.0mb, 3.2mb, 3.5mb, 3.6mb, 3.6mb, 3.7mb, 3.8mb, 4.0mb, 4.1mb, 4.1mb,
4.1mb, 4.3mb, 4.6mb, 4.7mb, 4.8mb, 4.9mb, 4.9mb, 5.0mb, 5.0mb, 5.1mb, 5.1mb,
5.2mb, 5.6mb, 5.8mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 6.0mb, 6.1mb, 6.1mb, 6.2mb,
6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.3mb, 6.3mb, 6.4mb, 6.4mb, 6.5mb, 6.5mb, 6.6mb, 6.6mb,

the pool then takes away three nodes (~275 of 5500) to get to what would be ~95%
1.0mb, 1.5mb, 1.5mb, 2.0mb, 2.3mb, 2.5mb, 2.6mb, 2.7mb, 2.8mb, 2.9mb, 3.0mb,
3.0mb, 3.0mb, 3.2mb, 3.5mb, 3.6mb, 3.6mb, 3.7mb, 3.8mb, 4.0mb, 4.1mb, 4.1mb,
4.1mb, 4.3mb, 4.6mb, 4.7mb, 4.8mb, 4.9mb, 4.9mb, 5.0mb, 5.0mb, 5.1mb, 5.1mb,
5.2mb, 5.6mb, 5.8mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 6.0mb, 6.1mb, 6.1mb, 6.2mb,
6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.3mb, 6.3mb, 6.4mb, 6.4mb, 6.5mb, 6.5mb, 6.6mb, 6.6mb,

then knowing that all remaining 52 nodes can accept 2mb.. thats what they make..

now here is the fun part most people forget.

pools start a flagging vote consensus saying we will make upto 2mb.. once the pools get 95% consensus.. those 3(275) nodes in the minority can up their limit.. as it takes time for pool consensus to get reached.. (eg 2 months for segwit and not near 95% yet)
so plenty of time for them to change a setting.

then. lets say it activates. pools can now push passed the 1mb old barrier and start moving to 2mb (much like the 2013DB bug where it pushed passed the 500k barrier even when nodes had a higher buffer.)

and guess what.. they wont jump straight to 2mb.. (much like they didnt jump straight to 1mb in 2013). they would try 1.001mb and test the water, see if any bugs present themselves any orphan risk. any issues.. if not. they push on 1.002mb, 1.003mb and so on over time naturally growing until* they get to 2mb due to demand and need.

*side note the 2 grey nodes(1.5mb i underlined) actually still happily accept blocks during the early movements meaning they dont actually need to decide to join consensus as early as the lowest single node at 1mb.. so while pools are testing the water only 1 node (100 of 5500) need to make a decision during the pool consensus+grace period before activation. the other 2(200 of 5500) can have a bit of breathing room ontop of pools consensus+grace period..

then when the limit is reached, finally after a lengthy natural growth period. the process begins again.
slow natural risk averting process where the nodes decide the tolerance

so dont expect a spammer to force a pools hand to make a pool jump up to 2mb on day one of activation.. pools are smarter then that
(much like the spam attacks of 2012-2015 didnt cause blocks to all be 1mb non stop, it was a slow curve over a couple of years)

It won't make any difference because bitcoin is an open source project and If the current developers go , others will come to contribute and continue the development , obliging them to do something in the other hand could be hard since miners most of the time will have to upgrade too.

Is there a possibility that states will interfere with the bitcoin developer team? What happens if the bitcoin developer team gets jailed?

Wow like wow coin desk has done a really good job for all of us to visit their website and had its traffic increase. I don't understand why would they even claim to proclaim this. It is understood by all that satoshi will never reveal himself. I think we all should not even bother posting such links as I feel this is a insult to our feelings about the founder, it's mocking us in our face.

That's what a hard fork is. That's also what BU is proposing.

People still havn't realized that the situation is not black and white and that the solution is actually very simple.

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

Sidechains[altcoins] considered

That's not to say that the discussion didn't provide advances.

In conversation, prominent technologists seemed increasingly interested in testing scenarios in which a sidechain[altcoin], or a blockchain featuring bitcoins pegged to the main blockchain, would be used as a way to extend the tech's functionality while preserving its core.

Under this scenario, the bitcoin blockchain could theoretically support a separate blockchain[altcoin] that would have different features, such as say, an 8MB block limit

The discussion focused on two particular sidechains[altcoins] proposals introduced in recent months, though which had not been broadly been considered as potential ways to achieve scaling.

However, there was acknowledgement that other factors needed to be refined (such as how the sidechains[altcoins] would be secured). Also notable is that the idea would require the addition of new code to the bitcoin protocol by way of a soft fork, meaning miners would still have to signal support for the upgrade.

Conceptually, however, the idea seemed to have support, and a potentially broad appeal.

One attendee summed up the idea:

    "The people who want things to stay the same can keep everything. For people who want large blocks, you don't have to schedule a hard fork."

I think you watched "Person of interest" and took it serious I have some ideas about something but I can't file a patent or register my invention it's rather in a theory phase anyways but I wanted to know if I could somehow use the blockchain to timestamp an encrypted version of my idea and in the future I could provide a private key to extract the data and decrypt it to prove I'm right, but who will accept such data? legally I mean.

stupidity of Blockstreams puppets is incredible, their dullness is really unlimited. What do you hope to obtain from these filthy insinuations?

In any case, we can't know if satoshi was a single entity of a team of people. He used Tor, so it could have been 1 person or a couple. Any intelligent group of people wanting to pose as 1 person could have had the same person to talk in forums so there are no big differences in writing style to start the team rumors, so we can't know.

While this is true there should be a line drawn. A good example for this is how Roger Ver is trying to rally the big blockers and all the "sheeple" as you said to go with them and fight for their cause. Does Roger Ver really know the technical ins and outs of Bitcoin? Between him and Peter Todd who would you listen to?

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

Point taken. I agree that our proof can't be 100% rock solid under any condition. But I want to state that something like 100% only exists in theory (like math). Even cryptography by itself can't reach a security of 100%. Its all probabilistic. But I agree that it might be easier to spoof our concept than it is to spoof a bitcoin transaction.

Maybe we should call it "evidence of origination"?

Still: I think our contribution has the potential to increase the level of trust in sensor data (origin and origination time) with respect to prior technology.

To know which one is the original is not the point and I don't think "proof of origin" would be the right wording for this. That would be some kind of copy protection. You would need to prove uniqueness.

Maybe Matonis and Gavin

franky1 is now also an enemy of fungiblity and not just decentralization? color me surprised.

Stop that whining. Gmaxwell hit the point