bitcoin fee's need to drop first then india would be more interested.
so far its only western countries that love bitcoin because they see the fee's as less than a minute of minimum wage labour or 1% of a loaf of bread.
yet developing countries see the tx fee's as valued at alot more than just a few minutes labour and alot more than a slice of bread

there i even made it red..
strange thing is that other clients are not just going to reject core positive blocks purely because they are core positive.
other clients are just not going to want segwit by not flagging desire.

even funnier is that this intentional orphaning and blacklisting opposition is the controversial chain splitting thing they cried doomsday.
gmaxwell actually wants to intentionally split the pools just to activate a soft fork.
thats pure desperation to the Nth degree.
not only is it an intentional split. but its also mining collusion by getting them to ignore other competing pools.

if your still defending maxwell even with this announcement by him.. then you have definitely been led down the rabbit hole

if you cant see the difference between voting no vs trying to write off an opposition from the ballot sheet. then your not seeing the corruption.
also core are trying to activate segwit without using node consensus. they bypassed it by going soft. all they need is to bribe a few pool owners with a few free weekend all inclusive vacations/parties/social events.
so please dont try assuming cores methodology is consensus or the peoples choice

lol..
yet you "trust" gmaxwell and sipa.. and think core deserve to dominate, thus giving core the power to do what they like.
we are no longer in the days of true diversity. even gmaxwell knows this. and this is why he calls anything not core an altcoin because he wants his codebase to be "the bitcoin". and be at the CORE of what bitcoin becomes. hence why they chose the name in 2013. they want to be the engine that drives bitcoin. maxwell has been very public about that

---

imagine it this way. lets use the american presidential elections as an analogy
other implementations want a public vote by citizens (full nodes) not for a president. but for a set of laws and human rights.. that each state senator and citizen should obide by

core want only senators(mining pools) to vote and will shred the ballot papers of senators that vote for hillary to ensure that trump gets a 95% victory, before the citizens even get to see the reality of what trump wants to push next

nah. i said all inclusive, im sure adam back and his playboy matt corallo will be there to supply those.. oops did i just out them
and yes i have noticed that at a few events even when only one is set to make a speech, the other is nearby with a weird eerie shadowing for emotional support body language, kinda not subtle.

im 50% thinking its the booze hookers and blowjob weekend you are choosing..
and 50% fear that core will blacklist your blocks out of spite if you opposed core. not due to any bad data, but just not going with them you'll lose income.

free weekend all inclusive at blockstream sponsored next roundtable?

im laughing
firstly
gmaxwell is still pushing the anything not core is an altcoin. yet he doesnt realise if they were an altcoin they would already be on a separate network. so the altcoin wont be part of bitcoins network or concensus

but here is the kicker.. gmaxwells mindset is this twisted because he has an agenda..
he wants to intentionally ignore those opposing.. thus forcing an activation by denying other non-favoring blocks

what a sore loser.
first not releasing a version of core to let users even choose dynamic blocks. thus making a self fulfilling prophecy that his flock of sheep hate dynamic blocks.. not due to giving them the option.. but denying them an option and thus using no choice to fulfil his rhetoric for his flock of sheep
seems he is too afraid to release code that includes dynamic blocks because he fears people will download and use it, ruining his rhetoric

next telling non-core code to stop running on bitcoin main net and telling them to F**K off.. ofcourse thats not gonna happen, but yet maxwell is again scared that the consensus mechanism can ruin his rhetoric if his sheep decided they had enough of cores antics.

lastly he wants to intentionally and biasedly ignore opposition.. not because block data is invalid, but because he wants to twist the numbers to his favour to force his favoured code into activation. thus not using true consensus.

what a loser maxwell has become. im starting to think he has lost all care and understanding of bitcoin ethos and is willing to do anything to meet some corporate target to release the next tranche of investment

seriously he has lost grip of bitcoins ethos and has become a fiat money man. only thinking of the commercial services to make returns for his investors.

such a corrupt loser maxwell has become

its been a couple years since i used blockchain.info as a wallet but i remember that used to bleep
anyone can confirm if it still does?

though i only watched 2 minutes of it because by that point i counted 6 facepalms of mistakes she made. i also started thinking. she is obviously of russian ancestry, while trying to sound american but trying to use subtle canadian terms. im thinking she is trying too hard to think of the right basic words to say rather than actually getting the right message/point across

as for the facepalm
1) she talks of economics but seems to not understand the basics

2) there is not a grand total of $12-$13billion invested.. there is a grand total of a few million that has pushed the price of a few thousand coins on an exchange. which then has made a vapour VALUATION cap of $12-$13billion.. but that does not mean every coin in existence was paid for at that calculation.

3) currency is anything. money is a subset of currency that is more of a recognised and utilised medium of exchange. so she would have been better off saying how bitcoin is not as common as money. rather than saying bitcoin is not currency

4) there is not $12-$13billion 'making a bet' either.

5) paypal is not a currency.. its a service.. should we start calling bitstamp a currency, using her logic.. um no

i may listen to the rest. but im wondering if it was her looks that got her a speaking spot. because it doesnt seem she knows much of economics

edit i watched a bit more.. and now laughing at the fake advertising of dash..
um.. dash is not used by 300,000+ merchants.. bitcoin is.. so dash is not 'the only' crypto she see's where people are holding for its utility.
dash's utility is way way way down compared to bitcoin.

ok i watched it all..

middle of video she is right that the devs have been drawn to the darkside of corporate sponsorship that want to take bitcoin into commercial services such as LN to rake in fee's to repay their investors.

end note
dash is like bitcoin 2011.. no localbitcoin.. only 60 merchants... but coming soon
dash will have a local bitcoin and a blockchain.info competitor..

overall.. boring

if i was you i would look at who wrote the story and utilise that person.

start a local meetup for bitcoiners in your area. maybe as just a social discussion at a cheap cafe/bar/pub to start with. and get the writer to make a story about it.
while socialising, let the group that turn up due to the story start brainstorming how to involve your local community more in bitcoin.
get them to make a short list of regular stores they visit alot and make that the hotlist of stores to prioritise adopting bitcoin so you can all use bitcoin locally regularly.

also use the meetup to do face to face trading. or business networking(startups/partnerships/concepts/idea's).
use the momentum to keep growing bitcoin in your area. learn as much as you can about bitcoin and then teach it to others.

dont just treat the article in the OP as a 2 minute of fame for your town and forget about it. use the article writer as a stepping stone to help you do something productive as its obvious the article writer has an interest in bitcoin, so utilise that interest

look for the most popular (largest volume) exchange. and then look for the point of no return.. when everyone wants to cashout/withdraw.
then you will find who and when an exchange will make the warcry of "we been hacked"

just be warned even paying a higher fee does not guarantee it being in the next block

just be warned even paying a higher fee does not magically make blocks get solved any faster

just be warned electrum servers may have issues at times(not synced) so best to also check other explorers to be sure if the tx has confirmed or not.

1) thats not going to be a problem,
storage
we already know 4tb hard drives are available, they are not specialist equipment only available to the elite. they are consumer level availability so no concern. knowing average consumers upgrade their computer every 4 years means that 4tb can handle ~18mb blocks. so knowing this next year we are only gonna get 2-4mb blocks and then waste another year or 3 debating what to do after 2-4mb.. we wont reach 18mb blocks thus 4tb hard drives are more then what is needed. and in 4 years bigger hard drives will be available.
eg 20 years ago 4gb hard drives were the max consumer level, now its 4tb. in 20 years it will be alot more. so no worries
bandwidth
telecommunications companies have a 5 year plan/roadmap. cellular companies have 5G as their plan and landline have fibre as their plan. the maths also shows they both will outpace what we will need for bitcoin. afterall playing an online game while live streaming it and teamspeaking to team mates is the norm and requires more bandwidth than bitcoin. yet we dont see twitch, activision, crying and refusing to run services. they are happily running for millions of people. yet funnily core are refusing and using fake stats to hold off.. remember their 2mb is bad.. but now suddenly 4mb is good. even the pools are telling core to shut up an stop using the 'chinese firewall' as an excuse, because the firewall is not a probem.

2) fully syncing
that can be solved easily. torrents, pre-setup hard drives(you copy the blockdata from old hard drive to new hard drive then only sync the last few days you wasted setting up new pc)

3) supporting the network
as for limiting an average person??
not a problem either.
what pee's the average person off is not the download time because thats a background thing. what pee's them off is how core is not fully functional until its fully synced. by this i mean it doesnt display live balance and doesnt like to make transactions while not synced.
thus people blame the sync time, rather then blame how core set up the GUI interface to function only after syncing
 this can be solved by core requesting data about the users imported keys first and then allow the user to actually make transactions, and then grab the historic data after. thus users are not waiting for it to sync first. EG run in lite mode until synced. rather than waiting to sync to then get users to choose full or lite mode. its easy to program and not a bitcoin issue but rather a core decision they can make to enhance their GUI (user interface) side of core.

4) the incentive exists.
its called securing your own funds by not relying on third party services. there does not need to be a financial payment incentive. also having 2 million full nodes running actually counteracts the equilibrium of security by requiring more connections which requires more hops/delays in getting to everyone in a reasonable time. so 10k nodes is safer and healthier than 2 million. as long as those 10k are not sybil nodes (fake/running from a clustered single location(amazon aws))

you do know segwits "solution" is just a empty gesture, a one time poke.
all it will result in is 7tx/s realistically if 100% of people used segwit.

basically making 2009's best possibility into a more of an expectability. but even that is not a guarantee..
yea core will try to oversell their own best possibility, and expectability for segwit, but i hope people dont treat it as gospel
only expect about 4500tx if 100% of people use it. which is the same numbers being throwing around in 2009-2010

its just a one time gesture, that has taken over a year just to even have the code. yet will take a while to even have the chance to even be utilised.

imagine it this way.
imagine in 2010 the buffer limit was 0.2mb and data bloat was 0.19mb.. where a year was wasted before some consensus roadmap came to fruition. then a year to release the code, then months/year to activate it. bringing the actual utility upto 2013. where the gesture only allowed a one time bump to upto 0.4mb IF 100% of people used that code.
history can see that 0.4mb would not have been enough for 2013 even if 100% used the 'solution'

knowing that when it actually becomes possible to use, we as a community would already be begging for more again. because the delays have surpassed the utility.

we can already see that core are preparing the next debate that we again should not PROPERLY scale onchain via independent consensus of dynamic blocks because core want to spoonfeed and control the code and decisions. they are only caring about pushing people over to altcoins(sidechains) and commercial services (LN hubs).

they want to delay real growth to self forfil a prophecy they have. if they delay growth. they can then give an empty gesture to then have the community still begging. which they then reply that growth shouldnt happen because their empty gesture didnt shut people up.

i can see they will pile on the fake exponential growth charts of suggesting the community will be begging to double blocksizes every 2 months because their empty gesture only silenced the community for a couple months, thus falsely determining that growth should not occur, because they will produce wacky, outlandish numbers of exponential growth of bloat, based on their a situation they cause themselves

i can see they will pile on the fake narrative of how their corporate/bank side chains are the solution, and we should not consider changing main net because the demand for change cant happen in their spoonfeeding 2 year timescales they set themselves. because they deem the communities couple month silence vs 2 years spoonfeeding wont fit and thus unable to feed the community what they wont. so best to not bother

whats more important is making bitcoin usable to buy things like bread, baked beans, toilet roll and rent.
then you wont care about fiat because your using bitcoin

if all you care about is a fiat price then you might aswell just go play with fiat and make a fiat wage

might be worth you checking how he wants to scale it. but not doing so by talking to core enthusiasts but instead doing some independant research, you will see that data bloat is of no concern to miners. and also nodes dont have an issue.

even core have said 4mb data bloat is acceptable.

all core want is to give an empty gesture to the community to bait them and switch users into using commercial services with added costs/penalties.
do try to do some independent research and realise it is core that want dominant control and for anything not core to f**k off.. not the other way round.

if i remember rightly,

the initial "random" generator was flawed and in later years we moved bitcoin to a better mechanism with more entropy. i certainly remember their being flaws in the java and other versions

secondly you dont need to try every second from 2009-2010. you just have to pick a 10 minute interval before a block was solved to aim for a particular key.

because knowing how the earlier versions were made. it generated a keypair right at the point it created the coinbase tx to add to a block to be solved. so grabbing a certain range of timestamps should be easier.
after all its not like he made thousands of keys on january 9th. the keys were generated at the same time as forming a block. which would be after the previous block but before the next block(your target) was solved.

for instance
block two has the timestamp of
2009-01-09 02:55:44
and block one has timestamp of
2009-01-09 02:54:25

so if you want to try to get block 2's coinbase privkey. you only need to search between 02:54:25 - 02:55:44

you could refine the search by taking the possibility that the timestamp of when the coinbase was created was within seconds of the creation of the keypair used to create it.

but with all that said. good luck trying. and i hope your great great grandkids have fun trying all the possibilities when you pass your project down your lineage

seems all you care about is the bitcoin price. AKA FIAT

those that care about the bitcoin price are those that only care about running back to fiat.
it makes me laugh when those that only care about fiat price try to pretend that fiat is bad, yet in the back of your mind you are looking forward to returning back to fiat.

i did find one of your quotes and thoughts of the quote funny


firstly. miners dont care about the blocksize. ASICS do NOT have a hard drive. all they do is receive a hash, add a nonce and rehash it... that is it. no hard drive, no worry of bloat, no worry of propagation times. just hash a hashed line of data. thats it.
its hash speed that impacts miners costs.. not data bloat. the more speed they have to compete against the more speed they need.
blockdata doesnt even come into the cost/speed.

as for suggesting bitcoin should not be used for commerce and just hoarded. then bitcoin loses one of its main utility.
imagine it this way. imagine their was an airbourne chemical that rendered gold useless for circuits/jewellery. and then people said, dont worry just hoard it, dont worry about how useless it has become, just hoard it.
the reality is that people will see it pointless to hoard something useless. they would move onto something else that has utility, and thus real demand.

wake up and smell the coffee.. killing off bitcoins utility as a currency and wanting to just hoard it for fiat purposes later on makes people think all you care about is fiat

segwit is not offering much more then we are already getting
their estimates are ONLY if 100% of users use segwit tx's

all this doomsday crap like 2mb is bad.. then suddenly core say 4mb is acceptable, yet still keeping legacy tx's at 1mb... is just bait and switch crap to delay real scaling to sell people on the idea that bitcoin onchain and LN will cost people alot to use.

rather than actually scale bitcoin they are trying to push people down a small thin straw and syphon people away from the permissionless onchain mechanism we know and love.

my issue is that if everyone runs only bitcoin core, (no code diversity) and all run it from amazonaws, (no location diversity) where all nodes are pruned and unable to allow new nodes to sync.

bitcoin become limited to being just a relay network that begins to crumble when new nodes cant join because existing nodes dont allow full syncing or have inbound connections closed.

i see no point in people paying $20 a month to some data centre when out of 7billion people.. or even just 2 million that are using/have bitcoin. can easily run a full node from home.

yea theres a few hundred or a couple thousand that say they cant. but that doesnt stop the majority that can. its like saying lets not let activision or blizzard release any new online games because some people cant play the game

if core want to be the centre/core of bitcoin then they should concentrate on being a full node and stop all the wishy washy pruned/litenode stuff.. leave that for electrum/multibit to play with.
pretending that not upgrading, or running pruned mode, or not having inbound connections is 'fine' is putting people into a false sense of security and wasting their time.

people who want to be full nodes need to know the darn assed truth about what's involved.
teaching people that anything below say 18-74 connections means that some nodes wont be getting the block data in the next hop, so that the recipient from you might be having to pass it around because you have not passed it around as much yourself.
yes its minimal disruption.
but a healthy network is about being a strong network where its all uptodate and verified efficiently. and should one supernode go offline there are enough other supernodes to cover everyone getting the data efficiently.

i understand core want to dominate and be the centre so that users can just be crappy litenode relayers.. but thats stupidly centralizing the network where litenodes do not have independent network involvement but are just a shadow/false pretence illusions of decentralisation.

i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if the only reason people want to run a node is for a pay day
i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if people dont understand what a FULL node intels
i dont see any reason to incentivise nodes if core devs want to be the gate keeper main supernode and then have weak shadow nodes pretending to be full nodes even though they have not upgraded or have upgraded but then decided to turn off certain settings because they feel someone else can do the work for them

here we go with the fake doomsday crap yet again

a consensus fork only occurs when there is sufficient approval to move forward with new rules.
worse case is without majority approval we will see orphans. and a bit of drama as the orphan game plays out.

stop comparing bitcoin to ethereum.
ethereum done an intentional split by actually IGNORING consensus and ignoring opposing nodes.

wake up to reality and do some research a consensus upgrade wont cause 2 chains to co-exist.

no one is proposing a controversial split or a intentional split. however its the core devs that refuse to release code to allow consensus to grow and core devs telling non core devs to f**k off.

stop trying to scare people thinking/making people think consensual forks are dangerous, as all it is doing is making you sound desparate to hold back real bitcoin growth

making bitcoin do scrypt in the hopes of averting asic farms is futile.

it would take just a few months to make one and we would be in the position we are now in, in 6 months
the reason no one is bothering with scrypt asics is not technical. its economics.

litecoin doesnt have the same utility as bitcoin. no one cares about it much. so no on cares to make a scrypt asic.
the price of litecoin is crap, being able to spend litecoin is crap. so no on is bothered.

but if bitcoin went over to scrypt. people would be bothered and see the benefit of doing it. so it would happen quickly