come on people, wise up
some people need to think rationally, instead of thinking all of blockstreams idea's are perfect. purely because they trust blockstream. think rationally, think logically and think beyond your personal "i hope to get rich if i circlejerk blockstream"

just think about it..
obliterating coins out of fear of obliterating coins..!!!

thats like running infront of a car tomorrow, on purpose.. out of fear one day in the next few decades you might be in a car accident.
thats like smoking 200 cigarates a day to get cancer out of fear one day you might get cancer.

we should have an OPTION of a new keypair type. and let people FREELY and VOLUNTARILY move THEIR OWN funds across.. but not to forcibly obliterate any coin that doesn't personally volunteer to move their own coin. as that's foolish

instead of destroying old coins simply because they are p2pk how about leave them to stay where they are and if some hacker steals them and moves them then that would be the old coins punishment.

but intentionally obliterating the coins (remove from circulation) is not ethical and not in any way good for anyone. and affects fungibility if its made ok to destroy coins on a whim of fear. especially if the act they are performing out of fear is the same/worse act as they are fearing.

nah its less than 46% are explicitly voting for.. and as you should know the 46% are only implicitly voting without knowing why. so logically less are actually explicitly voting for it.

also some of those 46% are also people hoping gmaxwell, luke jr stick to their word of eventually doing a dynamic block code released like they promised in 2015-2016.


you are just reading the glossy leaflet. try understanding LN properly and the things LN code has in it to tweak it towards hubs.
its more centralised than you think,

even if you have a private channel with another person(non LN hub connected.. essentially just a plain multisig) you are automatically no longer using the permissionless ethos of bitcoin. you are required to get authorisation by the other party (dual signing).
but if you are in an LN hub and hop network, then your even more stuck into the terms of the hub and requirements of permissions of others just to move your value.
its worth you running some scenarios with an objective logical hat on and not a fanboy hat

should you do some research you will learn that these authorised payments come with terms and conditions. (CLTV=similar to banks 3-5day funds available / block reward maturity) .. (CSV revokes = similar to bankers chargebacks)

its time you stop repeating the sales pitch you have read else where (everything you have said is not original) and try researching beyond the words you have been taught to repeat.

but please enjoy your cup of tea and use the time to not think up some silly insult or fud doomsday you remember reading elsewhere. and instead take a step back and do some independent research.

the minority (blockstream paid) set the rules, they after all are the administrators of the mailing list, IRC, github and tech category of this forum. its the majority (unpaid interns) that follow the blockstream devs desires out of loyalty, trust and self desire that if they show their helpfulness to the blockstream crew, then hopefully blockstream will employ them

i understand your opinion of how things 'should be' but reality is much different

we are no longer in the independent codebase area of 2009-2013. things have changed since big fiat pockets have started throwing money and employment terms in dev's directions

2013-2014 is transparently clear as the time when it all flipped around. and it has not been the same since

though i like the idea, rationally we will just end up seeing sheep making several accounts so that they can post under lots of different usernames.
this also needs to be reigned in and managed. as there are alot of spammers repeating the same fake doomsdays they lack understanding of , but hope if they show X people repeating them, people will sheep follow them into the wolves den

when you throw out statements that are repeats of other people. i can tell your not checking what your saying.
70% chinese LOL. did you even check. by this i mean properly.
or just copying someone you "trust" because they said it on /r/bitcoin.

put it this way.
antpool sits at 18%.. but less than 10% is actually in china
also. slush pool is managed by a guy from thailand. where the hashrate is a mix of different people
BTCC has stratums in many countries
f2pool says 12.6 but is actually under 12% in china.
BW is not solely in china either.

and now the big thing.
even if they are in a country. there are 1.3billion people in that country. all separated by thousands of miles of land mass, separated by different companies and all the pools are competing against each other.
if they wanted to collude they would be in one pool.

all pools do is collate the data. it is the nodes that validate it meets the rules.
if pools attempted something the nodes disagreed with. then the pools attempt would get orphaned. boom gone, bye bye. pool wasted time for nothing trying something that doesnt fit the rules of consensus

so dont even try to use the fake "hey everyone look at the pools they are the government". especially if you have not looked passed the repeated empty speaches of the Fudsters that actually want to centralise bitcoin into LN commercial hubs, by distracting people with empty drama

to mitigate spam attack is easy. it does not require large fee's and the hope a spammer will stop. while that same crap fee rules hinder honest and ethical people.

after all if they think raising the fee will make spammers wait an hour+ instead of just sending in the very next block, they are fooling themselves. its simple. just have a tx maturity. so funds cant be respent straight away. that way only coins with some amount of confirms get in and everyone gets a fair go.

after all theres not many reasons for normal people to move funds every ~10 minutes, repeating for hours non stop. so why let the fees jump up while still spamming the network by letting it happen rather than let the transactions cool down a bit, to give other transactors a chance to get theirs confirmed honestly

EG change the 'priority' calculation to really emphasise the age more.
EG add a 1-6 block maturity period (like the block reward)
EG let the fee increase more if people repeatedly send coins less than a couple confirms old.

meaning someone spending only once a day gets treated better than someone trying to spam every block

its easy to think of many many ways to mitigate spam, without needing to use/abuse fee's to achieve it and where fee's have the actual intent for their current purpose. of hurting spammers

it takes just months to manufacture a chip.

it takes years months to announce, implement code and then more months to then get activation (consent) for the change.
do you think manufacturers would wait till the last minute of activation day before making an asic.. or would they begin work months earlier when a change is announced.

think rationally.

seems you have eaten the scripted racist rhetoric. and not actually done individual research into the truth.
maybe best you spend more time doing independant research and come to your own opinion then just joining the r/bitcoin script following regime of just repeating what others have said.

come on think rationally. seems you think location has meaning. when infact its who sets the rules that counts.
the real centralisation is where 12 banker paid devs and their 90 spellchecking interns thing they should be kings and central to bitcoin.. rather than having diversity

while those at blockstream are telling you to look at china. they want you to just look away from what they are actually doing and blindly(beause your not checking) "trust" them

the main issue of bitcoin is usability.

it comes in 2 forms..
1. core dvs have put a 2 year hold on any REALISTIC long term strategy for this, and instead wasted time on a one time small gesture.
2. user front end ease of use.

obviously dynamic blocks is the best suitable solution for number 1 because the blocks increment in small natural amounts nods can by consensus agree is acceptable (oh and yea ignore the fake doomsdays that dynamic leads to gigabyte blocks by midnight. thats the foolish core dev scare stories to avoid scaling bitcoin)

as for the second option. although there is not much if any chatter about it. hardware wallets need to be revolutionised to not need computers attached and browser extensions downloaded to function.. and also not need lengthy public keys and decimal values typed in just to make tx's.. so imagine this as the 'killer app' of future bitcoin use.

ok lets play your scenario out shall we..

you do this massive change.. thus needing to also knock down the difficulty back down to low numbers that a gpu can hand again..(security risk again)
but guess what ASIC manufacturers would have already of made a SHA3 ASIC... and the ASICs continue winning.

meaning.. it has not changed a thing. apart from a month of drama until things are back in the same place as before

seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not thought about it very hard.
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not actually understood the problem
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented have not actually run any scenarios
seems all the people that are desperate to get segwit implemented only care about giving control over to blockstream but dont realise what would actually happen or the downsides of changing things just for the sake of appeasing blockstream commercial services

your actively blocking classic and unlimited nodes?

so you dont want diverse decentralisation. you want controlled system that avoids consensus.
i now wonder who told you to block anything thats not core..

you do realise in a true decentralised network having say XX different implementations from different teams is a security advantage.

EG if you only read news from one news source. they dictate what you think and know. reading news from different sources atleast lets you be more informed and double check whats been handed to you

the only reason you should block a node is if its DDoSing you. not because of the brand.

ok
lets straighten out the details

BANKS cant and wont get involved with something they cannot control.
so forget about banks getting in heavy with bitcoin.

BANKS will make their own chains and tether them to the IMF's hyperledger, to be inline with the laws that suppose to mitigate their risks by having control (yes having control can with bankers greed do the opposite, but they and governments wont let it be greed with no control at all)

PEOPLE eg citizens of india are not BANKS. people can choose to rmain holding fiat and be moved to the hyperledger project without knowledge of the change of how their fiat has changed. or they can choose to use bitcoin.

dont expect BANKS to get into bitcoin. but do expect PEOPLE to get into bitcoin.

sorry but there is only
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   895 (16.22%)
/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1631 (29.58%)
truly signalling for segwit
the 0.13.0 doesnt include the flag..

so its 46%(2526).. which others have said maybe running it just to be "prudent" (eg those just running 0.13.1) just to have minimum requirement to retain being full validation of segwit. but not wanting to get to involved in by continually upgrading beyond that.

some dont even understand what they are downloading. they just want to stay uptodate with whatever is pushed out. so they are not actually fully informed and explicitly voting for it. they are just running a node.

so the communities node uptake of say 30% explicit, 46% implicitly voting and pools explicit voting 18% explicitly, 32% implicitly.. both show that there are over 50% explicitly undecided.

mimblewimble.

easy term to google

randomly grabbing other peoples transactions without needing their interaction*. to mix them together (part of a coinjoin) and then put the funds back into addresses of who is owed what.

Blockstream mathematician Andrew Poelstra is working on it now.
*the concept is to bypass and strip away the old scripts that check signatures (violating bitcoins current security) and instead replace signatures with a CSV revoke code. where mimblewimble can grab unspents.. coinjoin them and put them into new blocks thus able to prune away old blocks because they no longer contain unspents.

at the moment they are playing around with it on a altcoin but conceiving doing it on bitcoin. basically ruining peoples personal security of their own funds purely so some mimble manager can move funds about at will..
but yea blockstream will say you can trust them to repay people..(facepalm, infact double facepalm)

---

as for me claiming things without showing any actual proof. lol i spend alot of time showing proof and even ELI-5 (explaining like your five) the rational logistics of how things work in realistic scenarios. i try to get passed all the convoluted buzzword and sweeping under the carpet of blockstream hype

---

as for saying the majority of people are decentralists.. your right there are millions... but blockstream devs are not decentralists. they are centralists. 12 main devs and 90+ of their unpaid interns (out of millions of users)

remember the devs of 2009-2013 are different to 2013-2017
remember bitcoin core brand took over bitcoin qt - they chose the word 'core' because they want to be at the core(center) of bitcoin. the engine of bitcoin
remember people who now have employment contracts also have employment terms
remember peoples ethics and morals can be tweaked for a price.

so dont trust a dev because of their history.. instead only understand a dev based on current actions.

want to know who is suggesting it most.

yep your favourite team that want to do it as part of a future pruning feature update (not same as current pruning feature)

agreed.
and the only way merchants(businesses) can prepare properly is if they had a proper working segwit codebase. and not just this half-ish release thats just a 'flagger' version0.13.2 (no segwit wallet feature). yep even core are refusing to release the full segwitwallet version. only spoonfeeding a flagger version until they get what they want.

ever wonder why core are going for a pool first user second approach.. especially if everything is suppose to be soft, not dangerous and backward compatible?

here is a mindblowing thought for the centralists

btcc already prioritises its own exchange customers transactions to get into a BTCC block first.
how about blockstream make sure segwit transactions relay to btcc and btcc just add segwit tx's to their block.

after all,
once its in a block, its all *cough* supposedly *cough* backward compatible, right*.. and not going to cause an issue for the network.
so other pools wont reject it and other nodes wont reject it.. right?

wasn't that the promise, segwit blocks being just like legacy blocks. segwit confirmed transactions being passed as ok

so make your damned segwit transactions and get them sent to btcc(and slush) and let btcc(and slush) add them to a block and see what happens.
in blockstreams promise theory. nothing bad, but with the only downside being that segwit transactions have to wait until BTCC(and slush) solves a block. which is roughly once an hour.

atleast then we can see if blocks get orphaned or are accepted as promised. which then shows how soft segwit really is.
that would give confidence to pools more so then proposing an intentional split.

think rationally

*im about a year ahead of most peoples possible scenarios including the anyonecanspend scenario which while they wont admit it, caused core to hold off on releasing a working 'segwit wallet' aspect of a full node until after activation. due to anyonecanspend being an issue

LOL
seriously??
i have emboldened the part where it reveals that you are not actually a dev or have technical knowledge or even basic understanding of bitcoin
you sound like just some webmaster that gets other people to code a website. and have nothing to do with bitcoin code

you seriously want to consider doing an intentional controversial split. and not only that. destroy the security of bitcoin .. purely to force a softfork in.

do you even understand what you have proposed. seriously!!

its obvious you are part of theymos's crew of blockstream loving centralists. where you, just like gmaxwell are getting desperate.
im guessing blockstreams next tranche of financing is dependant on getting segwit green lit to start the commercialisation and make returns to the investors.

how about the blockstream centralists stop thinking about your fiat riches and instead think about bitcoin. get the devs to loosen their control of bitcoin and just let consensus decide.

yes i know you are going to rebuttle that if segwit fails then consensus has failed. when in actual fact it has worked by not allowing something that is not needed.
i know blockstream centralists will double down and proclaim that bitcoin needs a human government of force heading up things because they believe consensus cant look after itself. but yet again the opposite is true

he is probably drinking it up with the other centralists in miami

have you even read segwit code
have you even run scenarios
have you understood the reality.

...
or have you just looked at someone else who said it was great and trusted them because you think they know whats best, so you simply took it on faith

when sheep follow sheep all they see is the woolly ass infront of them

i dont mean to attack you personally but hopefully it will prompt you to research and see beyond whats been placed infront of you

easiest reply is

while people cry about bitcoins electric which is spread out across the world.

think about the amount of lightbulbs and neon signs on the streets
the lights and aircon in hotelrooms and casino's

being wasted to try making poker chips something of value in las vegas

oh and to put it into perspective 400,000mw/year for one city. VS 94,900mw/year for bitcoins international protection.

or think about american banks. 90,000 american bank branches with 10pc's per bank branch = 3,942,000mw/year
and thats before including all the HQ's, call centres, clearing houses, ATM's, the mint, fed reserve, nasdaq, and all the security firms offices.

bitcoin international: 95k
las vegas: 400k
american banks: over 4mill