shame so many people get soo emotional just because i mentioned a name, so much so that they ignore the code and logic and context of the enitre conversation and just defend someones name.. lol.

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1528 (26.84%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1183 (20.78%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   117 (2%)

and minutes later

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1524 (26.74%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1183 (20.75%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   117 (2%)

wow it moves under 1% in a day.. and wow it goes up and down...
how about calm down and look at the long scale changes.. instead of celebrating at the 0.1% increases.. it make you look silly.

independant research, go try it. its mind and eye opening. you will ses passed all the scripts and actually see whats really happening.

please research
consensus
the code

then run some scenario's of how things will actually play out.
actually have an open mind and dont just play follow the leader.

lol those running full nodes are wanting the information about the network .. and they deserve to know.

yea a couple million litenode/webwallet average joe users dont need to know because they have no intention to secure the network. but that does not mean sweeping things under the carpet and hiding the truth with wishy washy meaningless buzzwords to confuse people.



oh lauda.. havnt you seen the other plan.. intentionally blacklist known block producers to make sgwit nodes only see blocks from sgwit supporters to get the 95% trigger.

EG ban connections from old implementations to only get 2016 blocks from pools with new implementations and trigger the grace period as soon as it hits 1916 blocks.

in short cause an intentional split to get the soft fork activated..

---

separate subject. after activation when the real segwit fully functional implementation (p2wpkh wallet generation active) how many old nodes will you white list as your downstreamer? 1% 10% 0% or will you not be picky and allow any connection to connect..

be honest i have seen on other topics you have a keen interest in your node ban lists. so we both know you understand the concept

exaggerating what i have said to such an extent that you make yourself look silly instead of showing proof that gmaxwell isnt actually trying to change things.

how about try reading things rationally and logically.
oh and please dont throw in the "gigabyte by midnight" rhetoric as thats more scripted exaggerations of r/bitcoin.. the real conspiracy makers

standard sweep it under the carpet statement...
(facepalm)

ponzi

reported

i have actually tried being unbiased.. and done such


highlighting the fact that old nodes drop/ignore uncomfirmd transactions.

and the fact that there are full(Segwit) and stripped(old) block versions of the same block data..

the network connections of nodes is affected to ensure less issues (this is swept under the carpet). so i done this.


please note
the not 100% node utility and not 100% whitelisting old nodes, change how the network dymanics look.
and
about transaction count
not 100% segwit key use, changes how much expectation/achievement of the actual one time boost of transaction count is actually reached.

i have got to agree there are many pyramid schemes.. the whole government/banking/retail economy is a ponzi/pyramid.

that does not make it ok, nor does it mean we should happily allow bitcoin to find it acceptable.

bitcoin was designed to get away from the corruption of "the richer at the top getting richer"

so again im reporting this thread but not to get deleted to moved to scam accusations. atleast then this topic is not lost so that the OP still has a place to talk to himself.. just not on the main board.

as its not something we should be promoting or advertising as acceptable

have a nice day

its a pyramid shaped ponzi scheme.

"2: donate X you your upliner"  
(emphasis 'donate') meaning dont expect returns as its not a investment its a sponsorship
(emphasis 'upliner') meaning person higher up the pyramid

"4: refer 4 people to the system."
    "Each of the people you have referred sends the same amount, 0.006 BTC and also refers at least 4 people."
(emphasis 'referrer') 1 up 4 down repeatedly is a pyramid

                        X

       x          x          x          x

   x x x x   x x x x   x x x x   x x x x

firstly what i say is not an attack on you, its just raising a point about something thats 'iffy' in your post.

did you actually receive these funds on the 16th and now free and clear of any bank 'holds/freezes/chargebacks' and you can actually spend/keep the funds from the 16th.

if you have funds from a person then they deserve to receive goods, assets, service for what they paid for.(but only for the amount that is free and clear and in your pocket)

but if this funds on the 16th are locked or are in the process of a chargeback. then take screenshots of it and send it to admin to show you have not been paid yet/wont be paid.

mhm.. yea core are stupidly going for the most foolish 'dynamic' method they can, as a way to turn people away from wanting it.

its like going up to a starving man with food you know he wants.. then rubbing the food between your a*scrack and handing it to him. and when he refuses to eat it, because you have only offered uneatable food .. you can scream to the world that starving people are not starving. because they refused your food.

they are desperate to keep onchain scaling halted, so are suggesting a dynamic method with market cap penalising code just to scare people away from wanting it. (people are smart enough to stick away from such stupid methods like this)

then claim "people dont want it", rather than offering a clean straight forward natural, non penalising dynamic method which people do want.
 

---

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1512 (26.84%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1165 (20.68%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   116 (2%)

~50% are segwit supporting whether they realise it or not.. yep 50% implicitly, but an unknown number below 50% explicitly.
the difference between implicit and explicit terms is that some people upgrade just because they see something new and shiny but dont understand whats 'under the hood'. so its not ~50% full knowledge explicit desire. it's less
the other 35% you are mentioning above ~50% are undecided. yep even if they love core. they have not decided yet or they oppose segwit. by not upgrading
(try understanding the context of stats)

---

kind of funny, i have actually in many topics highlighted the tech, explained it in laymans ELI-5 and shown the finer details that others sweep under the rug or word twisted with buzzwords to hide its importance or meaning. but as soon as i mention a persons name... its treated as attacking their king and thus they must defend bad implementation to protect the king. even if they dont understand the implementation.

gotta love blockstream fans playing the victim card, especially after poking the bear first

your continued rhetoric that china's "their" suggests one entity, but is fail beyond belief

separate pools have separate asic locations, with separate stratums, separate power stations and separate managers in separate locations.

the hashrate is not "combined".

if the chinese government were to cut off the internet to an asic farm warehouse. a pool manager can cellphone text message(or cellphone 4/5G api request) a hash with a difficulty to the asic farm..
when a solution is found the asic farm texts(or cellphone 4/5G api pushes) back a solution to the pool stratum.
yes pools have many stratums around the world.

if the chinese government were to cut electric to an asic farm warehouse. a pool manager simply turn on their generator temporarily while the employee's physically move rigs to a new physical location.. yes that farm isnt productive for hours. but the other 20+pools are happy because their 'luck' has temporarily improved, gaining income because they are solving more blocks due to less competition.
within 48 hours the electric losing farm would be back online

if the chinese government were to outlaw mining. then within 48 hours everything moves to thailand or mongolia, or other neighbouring countries (and yes pools already have property and pool stratums and guys managing pools outside china.. even if the classification you call the pools are 'chinese', they are not actually all chinese)

"no its impossible for camera's to be digital, where a clear picture needs a server the size of a grand piano to store just one digital picture. lets boycott digital photography and devote ourselves to a 100 year contract with kodak and fuji film analog camera companies, to make sure they dont go digital ever"

i remember them days fondly..
back then if i was told a computer shoot-em-up game required 60gb(20x available space at time) and needed a internet speed that was 15x dialup.
i would have said its physically impossible. the shoot-em-up game wont ever work, no one will play it, it would require servers and warehouses of blah blah blah.


but today millions of people are spawn killing people online on Call of duty.. without a tear.

technology moves on and bitcoins requirements are well below todays available tech so we can increase capacity now and still have room to grow when tech grows with time.

dont play the "its 1996, call of duty infinite war is impossible, lets veto activision from ever making games forever"

20 years ago: 1-5gb


today: 128gb


20 years in the future:
"back when i was your age, people were crying that bitcoin needed servers when the reality was fingernail sized stores of data.. those were funny days"

seriously.. wanting to ignore a majority to push through a softfork. .. thats a bilateral split (gmaxwells buzzword) where they move off to their minority 25% chain.

foolish notion to intentionally split the network to force a softfork..
a softfork was only proposed to avoid controversy and avoid intentional splits. real funny anyone is proposing to do an intentional split to get a softfork.

if anyone is serious about intentionally splitting.. how about try using real consensus first. and give the community what they want, which will speed up activations of two community desires at same time without controversy or splits.

.. but going from soft straight to intentional split.. shows double irrational thoughts and illogical process

---

i even said how segwit fans can actually get some real data to show undecided groups to vote for or against..
get a segwit node to be an upstream module(gmaxwells buzzwording) meaning direct connection to a segwit enabled pool. and send a segwit p2wpkh tx to, for instance btcc.. let btcc add it to a block and see how the network reacts.

worse case btcc block gets rejected. in which case blockstream ($90m company) can easily pay btcc $15k for the wasted time for the test... atleast then the network can see how "backward compatible" it really is and see how it actually runs on the network and/or changes the network and/or causes issues to the network.

but nah.. blockstream know the risks of it and know its not as "backward compatible" as they presume.

if you disagree with my assumption that its not backward compatible then go show how harmless it is and get some proof to give to the undecideds.

instead of screaming to the community that anything non-core should fork off.. prove its backward compatible to not need to fork off..
but nah.. blockstream wont do it.
they know they over promised and under delivered

we all know that only gmaxwell and those in r/bitcoin want the community divided.
they call anything not core an altcoin. they try to get anything not core to split off (bilateral fork)
funny part is that all the other 70 differ versions (dozen different brands) are all running on bitcoins mainnet now, and for a long time and not causing issues.
yep nodes with 8mb block buffer are running right now and are accepting blocks and not orphaning anything and not autobanning or black listing opposing buffer setting nodes.
not rejecting transactions not becoming gate keepers not doing any harm..

yep nodes with dynamic block buffer are running right now and are accepting blocks and not orphaning anything and not autobanning or black listing opposing buffer setting nodes.
not rejecting transactions not becoming gate keepers not doing any harm..

unlike core features

those in r/bitcoin point the finger in the other direction when saying a proposal they want.. to make them look like the victim and gain sympathy.
they are the ones playing the psychology games. they are the ones that want dominance not everyone on the same equal playing field.
they are the ones desiring centralised commercial services.

i feel sorry for those in r/bitcoin being handed scripts to follow and handed the same scripts by dozens of people to make it seem like its real because more then one person is saying it to them.

if only those at r/bitcoin didnt just play follow the leader games and instead actually read the code and looked passed all the buzzword games that are thrown at them by the script writers.

please if there is anything you can ever be advised to do, it would be... research.

research consensus
research the code
research the context
research scenarios of how rational and researched context plays out

dont copy and paste summaries scripted to you
dont throw boring repeated stuff that has been made a moot point years ago
dont just play the victim card that someone mentioned someones name. and instead look for why and what was said about them

seems more people are screaming im fud because i mention gmaxwells name. rather than about why or what im actually saying about his plans and desires.

atleast research bitcoin and understand it. otherwise all your doing is attacking a pseudonym, not the proposals or features of bitcoin

lol wow, your reply including so much proof, so much rational explanation, such much logical and rational reasoning to come to your assumption..

.. oh wait it didnt

expensive?
nope

if nodes cant handle a certain blocksize. they will orphan a block and the pools wont push the limit.

this "gigabyte blocks by midnight" rhetoric im sure you read somewhere is fake scare stories.

the community want consentual natural growth by the network agreeing what the network can handle.

natural prgressive network dynamic consensus growth

no big leaps to terrabytes a day or any other scare stories you have been told.

also right now bitcoins 8 years of transaction data can sit on a fingernail (128gb microsd)