although BU is one interpretation/bip of dynamic blocks. there are several different ones.
most pools are not even gonna raise a flag unless there is a clear way to implement it that is agreed by the community

and thats part of the issue. core dominate the bip acceptance log. core dominate the mailing list and so they are muddying the water while delaying their own implementation.

because consensus needs the node network to be ready first there needs to be a clear available release by the major implementation 'brands' so core holding back means most pools are just gonna wait it out.

what would be interesting is the core excuses why the delay of segwit happens, afterall they cant blame 75% undecided vote on a 10% opposition.
and it will get to a point where they can no longer blame it on the undecided needing time to review.

after all CSV got accepted in 4 weeks.(purple and green)


interesting to see the CSV initial unreviewed leap was at 40%-45%... taking 4 weeks to activate. where as segwit is 20%-25%

main fake doomsday

"today bitcoins 7 years of world wide borderless transactions of millions of people is huge"
"file storage will need data centres in the next dacade"
"file storage wont grow fast enough to cope"

..
yea todays accumulation of 7 years bitcoin data is the size of........ a fingernail,
grow up and stop crying

bitcoin is not just this forum or a signature campaign

if you have skills then look at career sections of bitcoin businesses and apply for a job
if you prefer to run your own business, then find a product that people want to buy and price it in bitcoin
if you are more of a talker then watch video's of andreas antonopoulus and other bitcoin 'talks' and learn about bitcoin so you too can start your own conference tour

if your skills are coding and want to start your own business, then find a e-service you feel that is missing and provide it.

bitcoin is a real currency much like any other.

bitcoin has no arms and legs or a mouth. it is just code.
if you expect some bitcoin dev to get on a plane to come to the city and do some big speach. think again.

however think about this.
YOU can be the big thing your city needs. you can start the ball rolling in your city. if you notice something bitcoin can be useful for, you should be the one that brings it to your city.

at the moment you say your city is empty of bitcoin. this means you have no competition, no one else there to cause you pressure.
so feel free to do your part and get your city motivated.

awww isnt that cute. defending maxwell by not considering him a queen, and not even suggesting to add him to the list.
as for me. lol you have no idea what fud is.
even when stats, info, examples and real facts are shown you will probably stick your head in the sand with the only defense you can find. call it fud.
may you research the word cognitive dissonance and realise that when you have no valid ammo to throw back at a debate compared to the opposition, you are victim of cognitive dissonance.

what if i told you that hearn(r3) and gavin(bloq) and maxwell(blockstream) were all on the same side behind closed doors and all the drama was distraction to hide blockstreams involvement while the devs and bankers delay bitcoin, to then grow hyperledger.
check out R3, bloq, blockstream all listed here: https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

as for the drama
much like the kardashians. or other fake youtube wannabe famous 'couples'. publicly pretending to fight, but privately working together to bait a narative to give them fame..
im still surprised you have not seen the bigger picture yet to see your protection of maxwell is misdirected.

one day you will be the one that realises you lost when your god shows his true self.

anyway lets ask you the real question.
why not add maxwell to the list. after all if there is no risk of him being deemed a queen there is no harm in adding him.. or do you fear the Diva style drama he will cause if you added him.

to remind you greg maxwell has been a queen too. and while hearn is working on hyperledger, so is maxwell, infact so is gavin.
but (im guessing your thinking) shhh we must not talk about the bankers blockchain, pretend it doesnt exist untill the trojan horse is built

though ver has created some drama. the funny part is your understating cores side and overstating their professionalism.. they are a dozen paid devs with 90+ unpaid intern spellcheckers hoping to get a job within blockstream one day.

greg maxwell has been most vocal. he has been involved in R3cked campaigns. calling anything not core an altcoin and telling anyone not core to F**k off. (you choose if ** = 'or' or 'uc')

surprisingly when maxwell has had to buy pool managers with free all inclusive weekend social events, and done a lot of face slapping towards anything not core. maxwell still has not got what he wants. yet you seem to not be considering maxwell a viable drama queen

the only reason slush and BTCC are behind core is because the ownership stake in them pools has ties to blockstream (the guy that owns coindesk has ownership stake in blockstream and btcc and many other businesses)

.. again biased poll = biased results.

biased poll, biased results

you get a self fulfilling prophecy of results if you tailor the question in a way that leads to obvious conclusions

problems
Developers have taken off their bug fix caps and put on their highschool economics hats, thinking that will solve bitcoin

developers holding bacl scalability to push their business plan of profitable transactions via business services rather than coding a barrierless /borderless open monetary system

developers have a follow the leader mindset. once a road is pointed out they all follow. they have lost their open mind to take it in multiple directions

yes its developers at fault. because bitcoin has no arms, legs, mind or mouth. you cannot blame bitcoin just like you cannot blame a baby. you have to blame the parents

yes to less secure. but also
no to faster
faster is in the eye of the beholder. although fast to sign a multisig. the settlement due to CLTV and CSV is the same as the old banking/paypal system. funds are confirmed, but then have a maturity before they can be spend(CLTV) which means its like "unavailable balance". then there is the chargeback ability(CSV) that allows the other party to bypass CLTV and spend funds to themselves if they feel you have done payment theft.

no to cheaper
put it this way, the average real world person uses an ATM/debit/credit card 42 times a month.
LN's current concepts are to pay a hub to stay open 24/7 for 10 days, cover onchain deposit and onchain settlement aswell as the numeric representation of how many possible transactions can occur within the "channel". the upfront prepay deposit amount required to open a channel they deem as 0.006btc ($4.70) for 10 days https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html (as shown in the 'results'.

which we know 10 days is only a third of a month so 14 real world transactions average over 10 days.
which is 33cents/tx

i cant see any third world country or anyone agreeing to pay $4.70 upfront just to use a service for 10 days.

LN is not the 'scalability' cure/solution. it is simply a side service for moral spammers (faucets, gambling sites, adsense) not real people wanting to do their occasional shop for a loaf of bread.

again the devs are thinking about pricing bitcoin based on american income. not based on using code to control DDoS attempts. not using code to keep bitcoin open and border/barrierless for anyone.
its turning into a system only for the economically rich westerners

(disclosure: im a white brit with enough btc to happily retire, but i can atleast think selflessly to see the bigger picture)

i choose greg maxwell as the drama queen.

oh wait, i forgot this poll cant be biased against blockstream..

oh well i guess i cant pick hearn either, seeing as they are secretly in bed together.
umm

guess it will have to be craig wright, although he doesnt code bitcoin or hold any bitcoin.. so that rules him out too

hmm.. guess that doesnt leave much of an option..

it also must be noted that the pools termed "chinese"
are less chinese then people think

antpool has alot of hashpower in mongolia. so does BW
even f2pool has hashpower in other places.

as for their stratum servers. the big pools have several stratums across the world and management teams in many countries.
you will be shocked at how racist people sound when they blindly deem the majority as simply "chinese". its almost like they think there are only 2 countries on the planet. america and china.

majority of miners dont care about the fee's. they just see it as a bonus.
they would add transactions even without fee's.

it will be several decades before fee's become important.
even now with a fee war pools still ignore transactions if it means shaving a few seconds to gain slight advantage over competitive pools to get a reward.

all they care about is the blockreward.

its the dev's that are pushing the fake narative that fee's need to jump up really high soon. all because they want to bait people offchain due to such unneeded expense.

its the same reason even after segwit gets activated people should only expect to get 7tx's .. much like what was expected from 2009+ anyways. its not anything new or any big growth. its just making gestures of goodwill to sway people in their offchain direction

so you have not read the documentation, concepts, current tests.
so your just relying on the trust of dev's?

i think its time you trust devs less and read what they are doing more.

LN's niche is not cheap/near free transactions for everyone. LN's niche is cheap near free transactions for doing several hundred transactions a month with a certain person.

they want to charge extra if you want to hop to third, fourth, fifth person, etc. they have alot more fee's/penalties if you try to close early. so all those people that only want to pay a person once even if indirectly connected.. wont benefit.

its more for gambling sits and faucets/adsense traders that want to get many amounts in a small time.

LN is not the endgoal of bitcoin, its just a side option. and wont be something everyone needs / uses

yep

http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
though it topped 35%(reactive) we have also seen segwit desire drop to under 20%(reactive)..

thus the actual(not instantly reactive) rule metric of 2016 blocks is hovering just under 25%

you can send any amount. as long as the fee is good enough.

EG
send a penny but it will cost you 7c-20c+

at the moment third world countries like the idea of bitcoin but find the fee's the main gripe. in some countries its more than an hours wage just for the fee.

the problem is that many devs are american and small minded about the world so while they say that 7cents is cheap for a fee they are not thinking of the unbanked world.
Even their future side service LN which they want to be the future of bitcoin does not consider third world countries as it will require depositing a minimum amount to cover a certain timeframe.
one example being $4.70~ (0.006btc) just to use LN to cover the possible fee's for a 10 day channel

as for paying the recommended fee.. everyone pays that. which means you are paying no better than everyone else. and knowing every ~10 minutes there are 2000-2500 average people all paying the same. everyone is left waiting.

it is very much a bidding war, yet paying more then recommended still comes with no guarantee's only hope/expectation

NFC/RFID use residual energy to send out a predefined message.

if someone can work out the actual microvolts needed to receive message(a), sign it and send message(b) and develop a small/safe nfc/rfid that can do some basic 'processing' such as signing a message using edcsa keypair or bitcoin keypair. then they can be in for alot of potential as a possible new industry

until then ... manually updating the stored 'message' daily/weekly/random time is the only solution. though better than biometric data (isues with papercuts/dirt ruin fingerprints, cateracts retinal scarring(diabetes) ruin retina scans), its still better to have a identifier that can change per day/use.

imagine it. having to have an implant to get a job.. then sacked 3 months later because its a mundane stupid 'mall cop' job. now you have to have surgury to get the chip out.

yea easy to inject in. but getting out.. um not so easy and no employer would pay a sacked employee for hospital treatment, so not really a positive thing in places like malls that see a high turnover rate of staff.

but for anyone thinking of the oppertunities/possibilities.. stick with nfc stickers that attach above the skin or on things.. not under the skin

before anyone does it.. may i suggest that people first buy a NFC sticker that they attach to a wrist watch/band first.
much like getting a fake tattoo before going under the needle and trying it for real

i know a few people use it as a way to unlock a phone. and do other snazzy things and others are envisioning a way to access other things. but here is a security thing to think about:

if you want to use implants/nfc to do things.. have the code/message changeable, not permenant. EG when you wake up you scan your wrist to update the code/message in the chip from the safety of your home. and that sets it to be valid for that day. and have it change each morning.

the reason is because people can easily walk/brush passed you in public and read the data and simply emulate it. so having the data permanent is BADDD.

what people have done is use a known keypair where the service knows only the public key. the chip stores just a daily "signed message"
EG
"its 20/12/2016 i own 1abcdefg..."

which is verifiable to the public key without revealing the private key. because the privkey is not part of/stored on the chip

nfc chips are not sophisticated enough to receive data and then instant sign it, (hence manually daily updating required).

but it does open up opportunities..
years ago i did suggest blockchain.info had their login method set as a public key where blockchain.info displayed a daily message and people would need to reply/paste/input a signed message to confirm they own the registered publickey.
(research BitID)

IF the CIA already had a backdoor then D-wave is a futile worry because the door would have already been open decade(s) ago.
so no point using CIA as a reason to think D-wave is a big threat right this second.

i feel it has to do with a mixing service

here is a white paper. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/575.pdf

havnt read it myself so worth you reading

the reason it mentioned LN was purely related to multisig. which ultimately is the smart contract LN uses.