because confidential Pedersen commitments is their future plans. and because its not yet official, i presume they will deny it even is in the plan and then meander the topic into more maniacal over dramatics by stating they have not added it yet so i must be wrong... rather than admit i see a few steps ahead of what they are ready to admit.
so i left off their future plan to reduce their maniac mindsets of twisting words.

as for how they are paid. well they will denie they are paid to work on bitcoin and deny their blockstream investors have anything to do with bitcoin... more nonsense meandering away from the topic at hand.

so i tried to stick to the point gmaxwell made.. and just highlighted where he failed.... 2mb block vs 4mb weight.. which is bigger.. even a 6yo knows 4 is bigger

yep rational people want dynamic blocks of lean tx's starting at 2mb block buffer limit..

large block maniacs want 4mb weight.

you can spot a maniac when they cant even tell you that 4 is bigger than 2..so will refuse to admit they are the large block maniacs,

if you cant admit that 4 is bigger then 2 and always try to make it sound like 2 is bigger than 4.. then no one should take any notice of other word twisting crap thats said

you need to know his whole back story.

1. in something like 2013 he told a friend to set up a trust. and the collateral was a bunch of PUBLIC KEYS
he did not show proof of signatures of the PUBLIC keys. he relied on his friends naivity to only check the balances of the PUBLIC KEYS to get a total value to use as collateral.

2. emphasis the friend did not understand bitcoin so thought showing public key was like showing a bank statement as proof enough of holding.

3. then using the TRUST which is then falsely insured for multiple millions of dollars of value. (although it held 0 assets and just a list of random early adopter public keys). that TRUST fund was then used as collateral to then get other investments by FALSELY suggesting it was secured by million of assets. due to an insurance policy insuring the trust.

4. the now invested fund was then used to make other investments..

5. australian authorities questioned the trust so he legged it to england.. then craig contacted media and started his own 'i am satoshi' whispers because the australian government were doubting his trusts assets.

6.  later people have seen that the proof is not proof. but publicly available data.. this has made the first trust funds assets factually reduced to zero. meaning the initial investors will want to drop out. which is snowballing right now like ripples in the water. each level of investment has now realised their funds are not secure.

7. now craig wright is trying to get patents and do book deals, etc to try raising capital and creating assets to bulk up the empty trust to try and salvage some value of that empty trust. purely to avoid civil and possible criminal charges if he ever got deported to australia to have to answer for his actions. he thinks if he can replace the PUBLIC key fake asset with patents and book royalty contracts to then give the trust real value, he can avoid civil/criminal actions by showing the trust holds real value.

he isnt satoshi, he just didnt think the community would recognise the signature
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

as being a publicly available string of text for the last 7 years

he thought people wouldnt pick up on it so quick. so had to play backtrack
i feel sorry for all the investors he has conned

hyperledger will replace the banks backbone databases.. bank customers wont see/realise it changed, but the bankers will see the changes in their secret systems and how bank customers data is stored, valued and passed around (behind closed doors).

hyperledger wont be an open platform where bank customers can be independant nodes..
or have independant privkeys..
it will all be multisig managed by the banks (imagine it like LN HUB smart contract concept but managed by the bankers)

however the american bank branches for instance would be nodes, of each banks "brand" sidechain.
where the different banks/branches(of thousands of nodes) then link upstream to a collective chain for a national FIAT sidechain... which each national fiat sidechain upstreams again to the IMF SDR (the main hyperledger) top of the pyramid chain.

all the main players of the GBBC are heavily into making hyperledger. they just like to mention "bitcoin" to pretend they are going to make hyperledger an open ledger like bitcoin.. yet its just going to be fiat2.0 instead

he is not satoshi.
the article says "relates to craig wright"

which made me look back at the research rabbit hole of who first introduced craig wright at a conference a few years back.. that RELATED person being nick szabo..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdvQTwjVmrE

to re-open the can of worms of Szabo maybe being satoshi.
eg "nick got craig to play along as craig being satoshi, to take some finger pointing away from nick himself"
where the first finger pointing years ago was due to szabo's pre bitcoin 'bitcash' concept that inspired satoshi, years after bitcash was conceived.

but knowing coindesk is writing the article.. im sure the other old inspirations will mention adam back due to coindesks attachment to blockstream.

then a further 2 cents. adam back will proclaim he is satoshi, just so everyone should rush and buy into his LN commrecial hubs concepts...
blockstreams scripts are easy to predict.

---

and this is why craig wright fails the "who is satoshi"
he is into law and forensics and see's bitcoin being used
https://youtu.be/4GuqlQvFYJo?t=1m40s

satoshi hated the idea of identifying people/corporate marketing of data

knowing barry silbert of coindesk also has ownership stake in blockstream im guessing it will be a story of how adam back(blockstream ceo) is "one of the 4" satoshi's
by talking about his 1997 hashcash.

it could also be looking at craig wrights first appearance in the bitcoin scene via a skype call at a different conference a couple years ago where nick szabo introduced craig wright.

thus saying its a 4 way team of
nick szabo,
craig wright,
adam back
and a mysterious 4th party.

sidenote.
adam back and szabo's concepts from years prior to bitcoin did inspire the single entity of satoshi. but adam back was not involved in bitcoins development, neither adam or nick the user behind the name satoshi,

nick did do something for bitcoin but again did not use the satoshi name.

in short its one mysterious single party who is satoshi..  and the other 3 are non-satoshi's, but just trying to get some notoriety for different reasons
.. well thats my 2 cents

the topology change has already occured.
matt corallo's Fibre as the green gatekeepers (aka gmaxwells upstreamers) in relation to the left side image of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation

the diversity recognition and acceptance behaviour can be white/blacklisted pre or post activation (nice bit of sweeping under the carpet word play from gmaxwell).. as jetcash has already proved by banning them already.. does not prove or disprove that it cant happen after segwit release

but topology vs diversity are different things
the diversity post segwit still to be determined after activation, once (cores own words) white listing old nodes (gmaxwells downstreamers) becames a more apparent thing.

i do laugh how gmaxwell makes half a statement to hide the full context

i find it funny how he isnt even commenting about
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/


because he knows the topology is already in the format i mentioned on the left side pic of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation, and the image in previous sentance of this post

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1466 (25.95%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1228 (21.73%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   118 (2%)

49.68 = ~50 of nodes implicitly.. but far lower explicitly.
also nodes dont get a vote..

pools 23%


so neither pools or nodes are at 70%.
plus if you take away the pools count from the node count. less than 50% nodecount.
yep pools were already counted as part of the ~50%
yep if you excluded pools multiple nodes the count goes down. (so dont imply missing 23% hashrate can add on 20% nodecount. as thats not how the measures work. they are independent of each other and measuring different things(my assumption of how you may have come to your wrong 70% figure))

short summary of the OP..

to prevent communism (the rich holding all the wealth and the rich) splitting the network.

the op proposes
splitting the network and moving to PoS so that the rich hoard all the funds and control it all.

PoS is not a way to even the playing field. its a way that the wealthy control what block gets signed and the wealthy get the reward.

there is no 'trickle down' economics of PoS.. infact PoS is the communism agenda. where those at the top get more..

it makes me laugh that he says the threat to bitcoin is from the poor. and so he want to shift control to the rich.

typical fox news viewers do that.

time he stopped smoking and done more research on real life and real facts. instead of the twisted info he has been handed.

cant ven get the left and right correct. thats how twisted and misinformed the OP is.
here is a hint..
nazi=communist=far right. (rich set the rules and demand control and hoard the funds) PoS

liberals, socialists = left (everyone plays a part and has a say and can share the rewards) PoW

i think you need to go research some more.
take some time, learn bitcoin, run some scenarios. look how the reality of bitcoin works.

P.S ethereum was not consensus(95%) or controversial(low%) .. it was intentional split, using a ban node feature to avoid the correction mechanism(orphaning) that keeps things on one straight
ill spell it out for you, so your research is google friendly

--oppose-dao-fork

enjoy your research

how can you have a proof of origination.. if it is not 100% proof, because it requires X/Y/Z if's and buts to be met before you can treat it as proof.

its only proof when there is no way to 'if or but' the evidence.

take the security video scenario.
instead of ifs or buts of needing the video to be securely stored in a vault that even staff cant access..

imagine it like it doesnt matter if there are 5000 different copies of a video. or if 100 members of staff can get to the video.. a proof of origin would be the way to know exactly which copy is the original no matter how the original was handled, physically stored, etc

lesson 1.
if 50,000 nodes appeared.. and then intentionally split.. all they are doing is making clams 2.0

lesson 2.
coins are locked to private keys. not software. so while they play with clams 2.0 your funds are still on your private key

lesson 3.
making bitcoin about politics and race just makes you sound like a Fox news presenter shouting "bomb them bomb them bomb them"

lol

oh look trendon shavers2.0
wanting people to hand them atleast $1000 and not touch it for upto 15 years...
pfft

im laughing at all the red flags.

lol nothing in the world can be bought with such urgency that cant also be bought by starting off with fiat.

i am laughing at the fact that your scamming 5btc.. usually scammers start low. but you are really going big lol
let alone the first red flag of zero trust (noob account) let alone lack of a sob story to explain what you need to buy
let alone the fact that your asking for such an amount.

you just havnt grasped the basics of your foolishness.

though there are many ways to fool something. using time stamps to prove something of the past, there is actual limit to its effectiveness.

your scenario has to be more reliant of an entity having no access to the source material. meaning the requirement of needing a timestamp becomes less required anyway, and more of just a secondary gesture of assurance, rather then a primary proof of origin.

i think your security system scenario needs to be replaced with other creative scenario, because i can already think of several methods to get around the security system scenario.

think up a new scenario that concentrates on, 'when all else fails' and nothing can be trusted. that your 'proof of origination' can be the proof without trust, without other requirements to be needed.. and be the sole safety feature that still makes the evidence valid. (in short remove the if's and but's)

5btc lol

i wonder why your bank has turned you down.

plus you cant buy anything that is needed so urgently that cant also be bought using fiat.
ask your friends and family for a loan. go to a bank and get a loan. then screw them over.

but the thing is if an alt can handle XXmb and superlow fee's onchain.. then obviously cores doomsdays of not coping are foolish. so lets just make bitcoin great and not think altcoins and alternative networks are the solution


more like core will perform the intentional split.. only core devs have advocated they would do such.. no one else.


'stake-holders' lol
they have no power.

NODES and pools .. you know the actual CODE maintainers, have an affect on what direction the code takes.

accepting devs empty promises and sitting on your hand hoping some rich guy (stakeholder) pulls out his blockstream investment in the hope it stops blockstream from commercialising peoples transactions into permissioned and locked multisigs. just wont work

infact it does the oposite.. if blockstream has to spend its reserves to let an investor exit.. then blockstream has to get deeper into its commercial services to get some more funds to refill the reserves to pay the other investors.

we should not be sheep and pretend/trust other people have morals. thats the whole point of bitcoin. we should not turn it into a system requiring trust.

consensus dynamic blocks can grow when the community is ready. we dont need to 'trust' that a dev will release X or Y in Z months. because having dynamic settings, the users can be in control and consensus of the majority move things.. not devs.

accepting devs empty one time gesture(segwit) that only works if we move our funds to their new p2wpkh or their permissioned p2wsh keys. and then be left waiting a long while for the hopes they at some point offer real decentralised scalability onchain(user defined dynamic settings). instead of their rush into commercialised p2wsh managed hubs. is not the route to go.

pretending that we should stand back and do nothing for the hopes some richguy pulls out their invests is not the route either.

bitcoin is just code.

it has no voice, it has no arms and legs.

bitcoin cannot walk into YOUR local shop and tell YOUR local shops manager all about bitcoin.
if you want YOUR local town to start accepting bitcoin, YOU have to try talking to shops to accept it.

dont sit on YOUR hands waiting for the code to do something. or for someone from bitpay/coinbase to specially travel to YOUR town to do the footwork for you.

if YOU want it, YOU need to ask for it