why is it that blockstream sheep use all of blockstream failures to sound like someone else is doing it.

Gmaxwell loves monero.. he is the lead dev.. he even has a monero address in his profile!! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425
gmaxwell actually wanted the other implementations to fork off, the other implementations laughed and aggressively said no
gmaxwell has helped add tx maturity(CLTV: bank 3-7day funds not available)
gmaxwell has helped add tx revocation(CSV: bank paypal chargebacks)
gmaxwell has pushed the fee war (advocated not to increase blocksize.. added 'average' fee estimator that actually increases fee even with no demand)
gmaxwell /rusty russell wants commercial permissioned services (LN Hubs)
gmaxwell/adamback organised many all expense weekends for miners to bribe miners
gmaxwell/adamback are members of the bankers hyper ledger (bankers blockchain)
gmaxwell/adamback are paid by bankers

as best as unbiased as i can be..
here are some options.

---

1. if segwit truly was 'backward compatible'. core could make some segwit transactions now and relay them directly to BTCC or Slush..(the two pools in support) get the Tx's added to the block and see if any orphans occur when that block is relayed to the network.
if no orphan occurs, then its backward compatible and that raises the confidence level.

core cough blockstream cough have $90m so they can happily pay BTCC $15k (price exceeding more than a blockreward) as a safeguard to btcc if the block orphans.
cheap 'test' in reality.

however it does not solve the second bit of confidence/risk that the majority of pools are not happy jumping forward at.. (lack of node full validation count)

---

2. doing it as a full community consensus. getting the community to have a consensus, rather than just the pools.
this is a consensus (hard)fork.. not an intentional split. .. consensus. there is a difference.

and if pools see a high majority of nodes able to fully validate these new blocks, then pools will gain confidence to vote for it and make them.

however it then means the community gain power to veto aswell as show devotion for (yep core dont want decentralised free choice).

---

3. so knowing they would need 95% community acceptance they would need to give the community something the community really want.
real true onchain transaction scaling thats not just a one time boost and also not having to let the devs decide what nodes should or shouldnt do.

so by also including dynamic blocks as a core release. nodes regain the independant diverse decentralised power. and it grows only when nodes show they can cope with.

then its just a 2 birds 1 stone election event where everyone gets what they want. and all different (10 different implementations) can be diversely accepting and consenting to the same things on an even playing field, rather than a one brand dominance/control event

DrSeuss

if you have the answers to the topic it may be worth you locking the topic, otherwise you will get people with colourful signatures making random comments to spam the topic forever.

the chinese actually pay for electric.
what the chinese get is free ASICS.

for $2100 they get from retail customers, asic manufacturers can make upto 5 ASICS..
thus give 1 asic to a poor schuck that pays the retail $2100 for one rig.
keep 4 for themselves..

well the smart option they choose
for $2100 they make 3 rigs .. give one to the retail customer that handed them $2100,,
keep $840.. and run the 2 spare rigs themselves
and spend the $840 on electric and wages.

that $840 works out as electric for the 2 rigs for 11 months netting them a further 3btc in pure profit for running the 2 miners for those 11 months

---

as for the powerplants electric.
the world is trying to develop area's like mongolia.
so they set up a power plant. ready to cope with future housing, retail and industry..
but while there are no houses, shops and industry. the electric that leaves the power plant is not being used (pure waste)
but the power plant is still producing a minimum electric output as thats just how plants work.

so while the power plant is producing and wasting XXXmegawats. and the energy is wasted going down cables that dont plug into anything..
they might aswell let anyone that wants to use it,  use it. the power plant atleast gets paid for it then and its not a complete waste while they develop new towns and cities

bitcoin is just code.
but its how PEOPLE treat it and use it that changes things.

bitcoin does not have a voice to tell someone to not pull the trigger.
bitcoin does not have a hand to take a gun from someones grasp

its PEOPLE that can stop wars. but right now PEOPLE like blockstream are trying to start another economic civil war, by commercialising bitcoin.

bitcoin was suppose to be the financial system with no barriers of entry. but blockstreams motives have caused things like fee wars. and now atleast a dozen developing countries that would benefit most from bitcoin cant/wont use bitcoin due to fee's being more than an hours wage.

and dont blame it on data issues.. blockstream are happy with 4mb of data per block. but dont want it to be 4x transaction capacity to equal 4mb of data. they are pretending to give a one time gesture of 2x capacity. but as fast as people adopt the new keys when it activates. they will take away this boost by adding in extra bytes of data which bloat the data but decrease the tx count back to what we get now.

EG a 360byte 2in 2out tx,  will become 1.370kb tx for the same 2in 2out. once you add the bloat of confidential payments, csv cltv and other features blockstream want.

so while they bloat up the data onchain without offering much in the way of real transaction scaling they will push people into LN commercial service hubs to rule bitcoin users lives.
only ever increasing the onchain block capacity as a gesture to allow the commercial LN settlements to settle without a bottleneck..
yes its already been thought about talked about and conceived as their ideal plan for the future. keep bitcoin held back until the commercial services needs the utility of onchain scaling..

bitcoins ethos is being eroded by PEOPLE who want control and to be at the "core" of bitcoin they even said so by naming their brand as such.

so while ethical people sit on their hands and trust bitcoin (voiceless handless code) will save the planet.. corporations with banker investment are corrupting the people that have their hands and voices of bitcoin

even as a non profit, they can be corrupt.

non profit means at the end of the financial year they cant have made any profit.
this is simply.. 'its month 11, lets go on a spending spree to get rid of the funds in the account'

oxfam have retail shops. but are a non profit because they make sure its always spend by year end.
oxfam CEO get a big fat salary that could have been used to make 1000 water wells. but he buys a house, a boat and a shiny car instead.
oxfam only put 10% of fund towards "worthy projects" once you take away all the money syphoning tricks.

same for red cross. ceo on over $1m a year. giving a low % of income to actual front end services.

thus being a non profit is not as 'ethical/moral' as any other corporation. it just simply means dont make a profit to not have to pay tax on.

even if set as a non profit.. blockstream can still have 'sponsor' contracts to halt bitcoin expansion and instead develop commercial services. as long as they dont make profit and spend every penny by year end

take linux foundation.. hyperldger foundation.. they are at foundation status which meant to be reserved for charitable causes.. but its just used as a tax free scheme.. and yea hyperledger is the bankers blockchain that blockstream is helping to make

here is the issue.

instead of making it a 2 part consensus
nodes first
pools second

blockstream decided to skip the hard consensus and went soft requiring just pools to form consensus.

the problem.. smart and risk averting pools wont flag desire for something if the nodes they send this new data to are not full validating nodes to double check the new data.

so while the node count is low. pools are not in a rush to change.. as there are risks of letting unupdated nodes just pass data on blindly.

it should have always been a real consensus vote. and core(blockstream) just thought they could slip it under the rug before christmas by bypassing real consensus by making it soft.. but pools wont risk it

dont blame pools when it was blockstream paid devs that decided to make the pools the decision makers. rather than a full community vote

so now what you should be doing is

we know you have 0.00202562 from 68a8fd9710594334cf960402fdca66dea88affa61d70baca1cff04230f7d3fe6
say you wanted to spend 0.0001 to someone else
leaves you 0.00192562
take off the tx fee 0.00015820
leaves you 0.00176742

so the example would be:
in
using 68a8fd9710594334cf960402fdca66dea88affa61d70baca1cff04230f7d3fe6  -  0.00202562 unspent

out
destination - 0.001
address you own - 0.00176742

knowing the missing 0.00015820 is the fee

not fixed. it varies depending on demand.(its a bidding war concept.. like an auction)
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/  helps find a good estimate.

the green line tells you the biggest chance of getting into the next block. at the moment it is 70sats a byte
which if you are just doing a 1in 2out is ~15820sats fee

some people get lazy and just put a fixed amount of say 80sats a byte knowing it wil most of the time outbid everyone to get in the next block.. only problem is if everyone done that. you then have to increase it.. (its a bidding war concept)

you can have multiple inputs. and multiple outputs.

easy guide calculation for approximate tx byte size

(148*in)+(34*out)=
this is an estimator as the answer can be +-10 different

eg
1 input if you only want to spend the $1.75(0.00202562)
2 output to go to one destination and the rest back to you

(148*1)+(34*2)=216
it actually results in 226byte when you actually build the tx

---

for instance if a 226byt tx costs 14cents
there is no point adding the other unspents (listed below) because
(148*2)+(34*2)= ~364byte = ~$0.23 tx fee
so why add in the 9cent unspent to just be eaten up in the extra fee by adding it.

---

you also have
0.00003 ($0.03) unspent a76f50b8ab76d2a0880be73306753423cc0cbea9a3aca20f13dfc51bdf3d4954
0.0001 ($0.09) unspent 5b9044c61a5c3d68f5bef7b67093e4109264e4aba836204669da42d5caeb12a1

---

lastly remember when you spend X to the destination you want. calculate whats left. then work out a fee you want to pay. take that from whats left and then put the remainder back to yourself

you spent the 0.005 from this
81bb5df4040f98793875591dcc9f93755b94425b9d1a6cc4c86871b246cc9185

but you still have 0.00202562 - about $1.75 in this one
68a8fd9710594334cf960402fdca66dea88affa61d70baca1cff04230f7d3fe6

just be sure when you use the unspent output 68a8 blah blah blah as a new input.. you set 2 output. one to the destination and one back to yourself.

if you have an unspent output of 0.005 (you did have but not anymore, this is a lesson in hindsight)
you set that 0.005 output as your new input for new tx

you set 0.0001 to the intended destination as one output
you send 0.0049 to an address you own as another output

thus you get the remainder back.

then by doing this. you can then spend the 0.0049 output funds by making a new tx where
if you have an unspent output of 0.0049 (you dont, this is a lesson in hindsight)
you set that 0.005 output as your new input for new tx

you set 0.0001 to the intended destination as one output
you send 0.0048 to an address you own as another output

thus you get the remainder back.

and so on..
only problem is you dont have the 0.0049 anymore. thats gone to the mining pool as fee

if you have    0.005
wanna spend 0.0001

you have to also tell the transaction where the other 0.0049 should go, otherwise the 0.0049 is treated as the fee
eg your
1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz (0.005 BTC - Output) ->   1G4o1ZAfCcZ812RYpXwKR9tv4mUUMR8pDE - (Unspent) 0.0001 BTC
fee=0.0049

should be
1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz (0.005 BTC - Output) ->   1G4o1ZAfCcZ812RYpXwKR9tv4mUUMR8pDE - (Unspent) 0.0001 BTC
                                                                                      ->   1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz   - (Unspent) 0.0049 BTC
fee=0

you then lower how much you want to get returned to you to establish the fee as the missing amount your not accounting for

such as
1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz (0.005 BTC - Output) ->   1G4o1ZAfCcZ812RYpXwKR9tv4mUUMR8pDE - (Unspent) 0.0001 BTC
                                                                                      ->   1GZF75yBKtDgwCyA5pavM2Xs1tkEwVCbjz   - (Unspent) 0.0048 BTC

fee=0.0001

your mistake is not adding a second destination to get your change back

getting rich people together never = positive for the poor.
all they will do is find ways to mak money out of th poor but advertise it like they are 'helping'

---

until bitcoins average mainnet (onchain) tx fee is fixed (dont even bother saying LN's commercial service is the cure) bitcoin is not suitable for undeveloped countries where 5-20cents= hours of labour in those countries.

again dont try to pretend LN's commercial hubs is the cure. because its not.
and dont try to say the LN's multi-hop is the cure because its not.

LN has a small niche and is not suitable for all users.

you dont hear millions of people uploading livestreams complaining
you dont hear millions of online gamers complaining

you dont hear millions of people facetiming complaining.
you dont hear millions of people netflix viewing complaining.

yet fake doomsdays of 1gb by midnight is used to scare 5600 people.....!!!

rational 2mb soon 4mb later and growing when node users set a setting to show what they CAN COPE WITH, to grow at a capable acceptable and no issue rate.

..

"shout 1gb to make people fear 2-8mb" <- standard blockstream script
"shout alien invasion to make people fear an ant entering your house" <- standard blockstream mindset

..

also telecommunications company both landline and cellular have a five year plan. its called Fibre cable, and 5G cellular.

so by the time we get to 8mb (in years!) the speed of internet for average users will be much better than today.
after all we are not using dialup like 20 years ago.

ill emphasise it again

getting to 8mb in years..  not 1gb by midnight.
be rational, think logical, research realistically

knowing blockstream have $90mill and only a couple dozen paid devs, and over 100 unpaid interns we can assume gmaxwell is atleast a millionaire in the fiat world

ok imagine this is a ~450bye tx
*********************************************

input
signature
output

each star represents 10bytes for easy display

if you done the same tx but using segwit p2wpkh keys, the transaction looks like this
*********************************************

one thing that will blow your mind. the blue and red stars(bytes) are still transmitted physically. but at code interpretation level they are not 'counted' as going towards what goes into the base block.

but because at code level an opcode is used to flag old nodes to ignore data after purple. making it look like an anyonecanspend

the other stars (blue, red) are only looked at by new nodes.
  old nodes see:*********************************************  grey is ignored
new nodes see:*********************************************

while unconfirmed
old nodes wont morally relay or add a segwit tx and instead drop it. however a malicious actor can tweak their code to relay/force it into a oldblock. (hence why wpkh wallet key generation is not released pre activation to avoid malicious attacks)

after feature activation,
because only purple stars are counted (yet more stars are actually transmitted). this trick can allow more transactions into the base block
because they have room for 100,000stars (1mb)

so where say 2222tx's was 100k(1mb) stars. if everyone used segwit keys. becomes ~50k stars(~50%), giving ~50k(~50%) spare room in the block for more transactions
but remember the blue and red is still real data but just not 'counted' by the baseblock

this allows ~5000tx's(depending on ins and out and how many people use segwit keys) into the baseblock but the reality is the actual data transmitted is 2mb even with the baseblock still limited to 1mb

P.S whats said above should be interpretted by the concept. i used rough numbers for demo purposes. dont get knitpicky about the numbers. just learn then concept of HOW the switch around is used and HOW things are 'counted' or 'ignored' by nodes.. and HOW it differs to actual data transmitted

then look at the extra bytes added later when extra features are added.. and have a nice day

you dont understand it

segwit takes out bytes from tx data (the signature is moved), this is a temporary one time 'gesture' and only increases tx count if people move funds and use segwit keys.

but later more bytes are added to tx data.

have you even looked at how many extra bytes are needed for:
CLTV
CSV
Confidential commitments

go find that out.

ill give you a hint confidential commitments are said to be (by blockstream devs themselves) around a kilobyte.
yep they want to bloat an average tx of 450bytes to be near 1.5kb for the same 2input 2output tx

like i said.
segwit temporarily makes an average 450tx 'look like' ~230bytes being counted in the base block with the rest in the 'witness area'(still totalling 450byte TRANSMITTED)

but then LN has their features. which increase the base block txdata ABOVE ~230 (thus reducing possible tx's in the base block again)

and other blockstream features add on, will add about a kilobyte.. (once confidential payments and other features is added)

go research

lol
actually its the blockstream crew that want to increase the units of measure.. as part of their LN strategy of millisatoshi's.
look beyond what has been spoonfed to you and research

but back to the blocksize..
blockstream want to halt tx counts. at 1mb.. but bloat the DATA TRANSMITTED beyond 1mb.
they as a fake gesture suggest their new 'weight' buzzword as part of segwit allows 2.1x transactions. but as fast as people switch to segwit keypairs blockstream are bloating up transactions with CLTV bytes of data and CSV bytes of data and confidential commitment kilobytes of data.

so a one time hope of 2500tx/block->4500tx/block.. soon goes back down to 2500tx/block once they add the features.. but the DATA TRANSMITTED goes up to 4mb/block

EG 2500tx:1mb      to    4500tx:2.1mb   <-blockstream (2017)
EG 4500tx:2.1mb   to    2500tx:4mb   <-blockstream (2019)

EG 2500tx:1mb    to      5000tx:2mb   <-community desire (2017)
EG 5000tx:2mb    to     10000tx:4mb   <-community desire (2019)

think rationally..
natural scaled and copable growth has been halted using fears of "gigabyte blocks by midnight" fake scare doomsday propaganda.

the simple fact is. if a node cant cope with a larger size they wont set their dynamic setting above what they can cope with. and if the majority of nodes cant cope it wont change. and pools that try to force it will just get their attempt orphaned.

learn consensus, it will help you.

even core have publicly said 8mb is safe but they prefer 4mb.. to be ultra safe.. so no actual reason to hold the base block at 1mb

getting to 2mb or 4mb or 8mb is not going to be an overnight thing. its going to be a risk averting curve that naturally progresses over time.

stop reading the fake doomsdays of 1gb blocks by midnight. as an excuse to stop rational smaller growth over natural and rational time.

they are scaring you with wild numbers, because they dont want you knowing that rational and natural numbers can work. they want to halt natural and rational growth to force you into commercialised LN Hubs so they can repay their $90m debt from investors.
they care less about bitcoin and only care about their investment contract,

just look beyond the doomsday rhetoric told to you by the guys devoted to blockstream and look for the truth behind their propaganda
.. but i guess like all the other blockstream sheep. you wont research it. you will just "trust" them on face value.

here is the blockstream rhetoric simplified.
"dont think about the blue line or choose the blue line because we want to scare you with a fake red line to push people into a new network that has commercialised hubs"