there are already many named values.
bitcent 0.01(cBTC) - 1,000,000sat
milli-bit 0.001(mBTC) - 10,000sat
'bit'/microbit 0.00000100(μBTC) - 100 sat
'finney' 0.00000010 - 10 sat
'satoshi' 0.00000001 - 1 sat

getting people to change from using a term commonly is only a temporary thing. so having too many terms for each decimal becomes redundant.

we are currently at the 'bitcent' measure (1bitcent=~£6.50/$7.90) where people can see it like common numbering, when comparing to fiat.

then there is millibit which is 1millibit=£65/$79 which will become common once bitcoin reaches over $1,000

then most people over the last few years have debated that moving to a new term just one decimal down and trying to teach the community to get used to it once a bitcent or milli-bit becomes large enough, would be a headache so people have said to just jump to 'bit'(microbit) which is a more permenant longterm measure where 'bit' becomes the whole number and sats become the 100th decimal of a bit

as others have said

SHA is more of a binary logic problem so D-waves non binary methodology wont be efficient at solving binary problems due to that, as it will have limitations on d-waves abilities, so only expect a 2x-4 efficiency gain if trying to brute force SHA
bitcoin ASICS have already defended against this by becoming several hundred thousand times more efficient than a 'generic' binary based cpu.. on a unit vs unit measure.. so a d-wave 'generic' cpu has already lost.
d-wave would not only need to make a d-wave chip specific to solving SHA(SHA ASIC) just to compete, but also require atleast 190,000 d-wave asics just to match/outperform bitcoin asics. (imagining that a single d-wave asic had same scale as binary ASIC hashing rate)
D-wave currently only have one or a few sub modern CPU rate systems.(imagine it like they are comparable to the 1960's right now)

ECDSA is more of a vector logic problem not binary, which binary systems dont handle as fast, so because d-wave methodology is not binary it will be more efficient at solving it to a tune of a few thousand fold. so expect ECDSA to be the target where some malicious person 'could' use d-wave to mess with

what will probably change is bitcoin keys will in the future not all be fixed to using the same y2 = x3 + 7 'ecc' curve, where the public/private then determines (in real numbers) the Fibonacci curve within the 'ecc' curve. thus add an extra element to indicate a unique ecc curve per public/private key. thus adding an extra and deeper scale of entropy to have a more secure/unique fibbonacci curve for the keys

however d-wave have a long way to go. although their 'machine' looks like a large datacentre server, the processing power is like the processing power of them clunky datacenter size units used in the 1960's.

dwave has a long way to go to downsize it to modern desktop/laptop sized cpu's to be ready for home use

ya ya ya

we know you would love bitcoin to be a blockstream authoritarian currency.

you have no clue what socialist is and so you try to hide your own desire by deeming anyone that wants an open community to be a dictatorship by you twisting/adding words.. to fit your desire

you have no clue.

as for my comments. i am level headed and atleast aware and research the competition to understand whats at stake.
but you keep your head in the sand while you praise blockstream as your leader.

one day you will realise your leader is part of hyperledger and they want to tether bitcoin to hyperledger so they can suck people over to their banker controlled sidechains.

you really need a wake up call because unlike you, many of us have seen the bait and switch of those adoring blockstream and loving alternative networks by cowardly not doing any research and then accusing those that want to keep bitcoin strong and open of wanting the opposite.

your rhetoric is boring, not original and become very very clear to see.

avoids internal staff theft/manipulation if done right
no requirement of central server as each regional office has copy.

less security staff / IT maintenance staff / auditing staff / accounting staff / HR staff / internal affairs staff, as it becomes more self governing/self reliant even if all the nodes are part of one company

though i love bitcoin 100% you do have to keep an open mind to the opposition to be aware of it.
over hyping bitcoin and downplaying the competition makes you ignore reality, which can then slap you with a reality stick, with a shock later

there is still utility in using blockchains whether public or private.

the issue is that a "blockchain" is just an empty base template. it has no specifics. it can be PoS, PoA or PoW
the chain link can be MD5, Sha or other hashing.

it can be distributed to x known nodes or x00,000,000 unknown nodes.

what  is 'locked in' (immutable) can be the important data itself, or just references to other important data that can be edited in a separate 'network'

once you realise that blockchain is just the next level of database programmability. one step above relational databases, but several steps below all the extra layers bitcoin chose to use.. you realise there is some funky things you can do with it.

check out all the 1000+ altcoins that do different things. and there are still many possibilities not even thought about yet.

right now the bankers 'hyperledger' has more features/abilities than the old banking systems. but not quite as diverse as bitcoin. so its playing in the middle. but there are advantages they have found.

we should not think hyperledger is not a threat. because i can see it can pose a threat to bitcoin, although not immediately apparent to banking customers as they wont see the differences (much) at the front end. but the underlying things will / has swayed some of the bitcoin devs over to the bankers side to help them build out their features

to clarify

when mtgox prices went down below the other exchanges.. no one could arbitrage it because mtgox locked withdrawals.

thats why the price went down. what happened was people recognised mtgox was failing and stopped 'sheepfollowing' mtgox.. thus while mtgox dropped to $100 other exchanges remained at $250~

anyone playing with the $100 mtgoxcoin was playing with vapour. those doing it knew it, but still had hope if they can game it by doubling their mtgoxcoin. they could hopefully have a vapour balance larger that the lockin and hope to recover something at a later date if mtgox reopened later or was taken to insolvency court.

they knew thy couldnt just withdraw, but thought if they could double their balance it could possibly mean double the pennies on the dollar return at any debt recovery plan later.

as for the OP's conspiracy.. sorry, that just does not play out

im guessing your favorite tv channels are fox news and cnn and you thought that clinton and trump deserved to be the only 2 choices

you got no clue what socialist is
so you attach dictatorship to it (which is more of a capitalist (selfish) sided word) and twist a community concept into a authoritarian concept.

i have rad your posts and where i am a libertarian/socialist. your a capitalist/authoritarian.

your the one twisting things because you have no clue about the difference between a open community and dictatorial authority..
as for this topic.. look at the image the OP made and explain the 61% undecided.. go on
im laughing that you now say its related to c++11.. seriously.. china has been using c++11 before the yanks. think about it.. all major electronics programmed using c++ come from asia...
china is ahead of the electronic/gadget industry of the world, not behind

it makes me laugh
it seems someone is spoon feeding you what to say and you are regurgitating it out, pretending its fresh

LOL 75% of segwit obstruction is roger vers???

seriously?
if ver had 75% to obstruct segwit. then the unlimited/classic segment would be at 75%.

look at he OP's image 61% is neither side.

get your head out the clouds and stop exaggerating.. atleast be rational and honest

as a concept for a new altcoin:

early adoptors wouldnt care. because in the early days there wouldnt be that many people so the hashrate would be small. thus early adopters wouldnt be spending much to mine it.

you might want to start with a lower reward to incentivise people to power up to get more reward.

no point starting large and getting larger

though segwit doesnt need node network confidence/validation consensus to activate... BU does.

pools wont even flag for BU in droves unless they see the node network is ready
which is a safety feature. why push a new rule if network nodes are not ready.

however segwit doesnt care about network nodes and blockstream have funded a few nice long weekend all inclusive 'meetups' with some pools to sway them.. seems though it has not swayed all the pools. or some of the pools were not invited to the many paid for parties.

so some pools are not going to just run software unless they have evaluated it themselves.
but we know some pools ran ahead and started using it in a timescale that shows they didnt even read the final release code line for line..
which is a safety risk. why push a new rule before checking every line of code

all that can be said is time will tell

what if i told you its not a toss of a coin. its a count of the last 40 games and if there is count of 19 wins... the next person will lose automatically no matter what he decided

distributed and centralised are 2 things but it gets complicated.

1)say bitcoin was on 5 computers all held in 1 office. but each computer was password by 5 strangers who do not talk to each other and turn up on separate days to never meet..

2)say bitcoin was on 5 computers held in 5 locations. but each computer was password by 5 strangers who do not talk to each other and never meet..

3)say bitcoin was on 2000 computers held in 2000 locations. but all distributed by one person to his desired location. he visits each location to maintain them

4)say hyperledger was on 5 computers held in 1 office. but each computer was password by 5 strangers who do not talk to each other and turn up on separate days to never meet..

5)say hyperledger was on 5 computers held in 5 locations. but each computer was password by 5 strangers who do not talk to each other and  never meet..

6)say hyperledger was on 2000 computers held in 2000 locations. but all distributed by one person to his desired location. he visits each location to maintain them

now... here is the next conundrum
a)all 5 bitcoin nodes are pre programmed by 1 person, all the software, rules, are done by one man that handed it to 5 people
b)all 5 bitcoin nodes are pre programmed by 5 different people, all the software, rules, are done by the programs (not people) finding a fair consensus that all 5 nodes can tolerate.

c)all 5 hyperledger nodes are pre programmed by 1 person, all the software, rules, are done by one man that handed it to 5 people
d)all 5 hyperledger nodes are pre programmed by 5 different people, all the software, rules, are done by the programs smart contract ability to cross communicate/translate/redefine

now. list the numbers that are technically not 'centralised'
spoiler: [  2b & 5d    ]

socialist systems do work.. its when capitalists suck the socialists dry that people then blame socialists.. when its the capitalists that caused it.
however socialist systems can work without governments. and bitcoin is proving that with bitcoins consensus network.

governments are capitalists in sheeps clothing.

take the rhetoric that "the worlds citizens" are indebt to a combined few trillion.... um no. corporations/agencies are in debt. yet them corporations/agencies are trying to pass the debt on... meaning capitalism has failed people

lol do your research
1. you dont need a full node to use bitcoin.

2. those that want to be a full node obviously have enough money to pay for landline internet and a computer. so a food donation is not needed, thus this topic is not for them.

3. for those in need of food wont have a computer so a $15 usb device wont feed their stomachs

4. LN in its blockstream concept has a ~$4.70 (0.006btc) prepay fee and lots of penalty fee's. again not what developing countries can afford because stupidly its programmed by americans with america 'pricing'

my biggest gripe is the american mindset of economics rather then a world wide mindset of using code to reduce problems. fee's are not a solution to spam. code is.

5. LN is useless for people that buy things irregularly. its great for and has a niche for faucets/daytraders/gamblers who do LOADS of transactions a day. but not the average spender. because. the fee's LN are dreaming up dont outweigh the utility.
eg average stats of people using atms and visa to buy real life daily things in the real world is 42 times a month.
$4.70/42=~11cents which is still near an hours wage for developing countries. well more then an hour for some.
again LN is great for daytraders/gamblers/faucet raiders/adsense stuff.. but not real peoples lives. especially in developing countries.

please atleast be realistic and dont overhype bitcoin/LN...
bitcoin has lost its footing in regard for the 'unbanked' developing countries

6. segwit is not extending bitcoin. its instead circling back round to the 7tx/s expectation whereby we only actually achieved 3tx/s.. yes blockstream can shout out 14tx expectation. but thats only IF 100% of usrs use LN and 100% of users do a 1in 1 out.. so dont expect 14tx/s as the norm. just have a more realistic mind that we will probably get 7tx/s finally. even blockstream gesture of fee discount is not going to bring fee's down to 2009-13 levels. but instead back to 2015 levels temporarily.. basically a roll back to prices at segwits first announcement. but then the new 'tx fee average' mechanism is pushing the fee's forward and avoiding a reactive pricing due to demand.

7. you do know that 2mb base 4mb weight is still under the 4mb total bloat amount that blockstream/core are now happy with. but because the ratio is 2mb base instead of 1mb base. more transactions can be accepted without having a spare 2mb empty gesture to poke the bear.

8. if you think LN is the end goal. then you need to research that CLTV and CSV combined to become a real world end user perception of funds locked in a maturity delay (unavailable funds) and funds revoke(chargeback) ability much like credit cards, paypal and bank accounts. thus the 'settlement period' makes LN no better than paypal

what you need to realise is that i have been around longer then you and understand alot more then you think.

i dont use this forum to overhype bitcoin because of this mindblowing thought..
all people on this forum already know/heard of bitcoin so they dont need to be sold on bitcoin using any hype. they are already here..


they dont need the "ice sales pitch to an Eskimo".
if you think that trying to overhype bitcoin to people already knowing about bitcoin is good... then you have already missed your own point

this forum needs the reality check. the cold hard truth. not the utopian dream.

i am frank with what i say, if i see some devs taking bitcoin in the wrong direction or trying to stall bitcoins growth, im gonna talk about it.. i am not going to stay quiet and pretend everything is perfect.

im not here to stroke the cheeks of sheep to lull them back to sleep, im here to wake people up and try making bitcoin stronger

thats the point of bitcoin WE are bitcoin. devs should not have control, so sitting back and letting them take you up the rear-end is not something anyone should let happen

the thing about smart people is that with morals we see passed the bull crap and speak the truth. thats why i gave up advertising bitcoin because its simply not ready for mainstream. and real people in the real world who really want to use bitcoin understand its not ready.

anyone saying otherwise is just a fiat salesman looking for a future fiat payday and cares nothing for bitcoin

im not gonna advertise it just for the hope of a fiat pay day for the simple fact that i dont want or need fiat.

yes a while back i did promote it. i done more then most to spread the word. i overcame every objection and got many to be interested in bitcoin, i done give aways and many things, i helped set up businesses, but reality gave me a reality check. some say it made me cynical. some say it gave me a honest opinion of bitcoin. but in short bitcoin is not ready for mainstream and we need to fix the infrastructure before wasting time speaking to the masses.. otherwise the masses will see the limitations and move on

i and people i know have spent/done alot to promote bitcoin and go around the world talking about it over the last few years. brushing away all the hype and glossy stuff.. and seeing how public opinion has changed over the years. in the end..

bitcoin is not ready

it has nothing to do with the market price. its about bitcoin utility and how bitcoin is not meeting the original vision set out in 2008-2013.

issues:
developing countries: tx fee has the cost of an hours minimum wage
developing countries: lack of easy gateways to buy bitcoin
developing countries: lack of places to spend/sell bitcoin
developing countries: mpesa is more user friendly

developed countries: waiting 10 minutes+ for confirms is not good in a grocery store
developed countries: not good for spending on daily real life needs (baked beans and toilet roll)
developed countries: applepay or NFC visa cards are more user friendly

yes bitcoin has many many advantages compared to the native fiat system, but when you wipe away the overglossing of benefits and talk to real people that want to USE it for real reasons (not hoarders) bitcoin lacks what mainstream wants.

but hey lets just see all the sig spammers ignore bitcoins lackings, and just talk about hyping bitcoin while showing the $$ signs in their eyes. talking of their hope to overgloss issues purely for speculating a $$ rise for a $$ payday when they exit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country

Venezuela minimum wage is 17cents an hour..
no one is gonna pay an hours wage just to transact

bitcoin is no better for Venezuela than common currency. and you can thank your best friend gmaxwell for the fee war to make bitcoin lose its appeal in third world countries.

now do you see the problem of pushing a fee war.

no
satoshi was talking about blockchain in the full context of bitcoin. because the topic he was talking about was bitcoin. he never really thought much about altcoins back in the first days, so was not talking about blockchain as just a separate topic

bitcoin is a patchwork quilt of many many things brought together. which makes bitcoin special. but blockchain and bitcoin are not on the same level. blockchain is a base level template. that needs building on

sha256 was a breakthrough in 2001
cryptographic signatures (ecdsa) was a breakthrough in 1999
proof of work was a breakthrough in 1997...
ripemd was a breakthrough in 1995

i could go on.

if you want to start saying blockchain has certain things as a prerequisite.. then you start getting into deeper questions like

if PoW is a prerequisite. then PoS coins are not blockchains?
or
if PoW is a prerequisite. then you cant leave PoW details blank otherwise its an empty gesture/useless to have included PoW as a prerequisite
if PoW is a prerequisite. then what PoW .. MD5 hashed, sha1, sha2, sha3.
if PoW is a prerequisite. then once you answer the detail of the hash required you then have to answer what length nonce is needed.
if PoW is a prerequisite. then once you answer the detail of the hash&nonce length required you then have to answer difficulty mechanism is needed
if PoW is a prerequisite. then once you answer the detail of the hash&nonce length& difficulty required you then have to answer difficulty retarget period.

yep. by saying PoW is needed you then start tumbling down a hill of creating an altcoin by having to get specific purely to even say PoW is needed because PoW needs prerequisites

however blockchain is a blank template. where it can go in any direction.. PoW, PoS PoA, etc. the data within the blocks can be anything. the timing of the blocks can be anything. distribution variation, diversity. etc etc etc

i agree with you on this point.
their bait: more then 1mb is too much bloat.. their switch: but here is 2-4mb that old style wont get to use, but new style will have bloat
their bait: bitcoin is slow, dont let more old style transactions through their switch: lets make a new network and move people away from fullnodes

eg
if they are running a node for the lightning network*, why would they run a node for the bitcoin network if they are not doing anything on the bitcoin network while on the lightening network*

eg
imagine it like you used to drink starbucks everyday at the store. but now you get to make it yourself at home. would you still walk into a starbucks store everyday just to help keep the appearance of supporting the store, even if you dont buy anything instore everyday.
ofcourse not.
peoples 'devotion' will wane and though they will vocally stay devoted, they physically act differently.

people need to be honest. if they are not going to use a network every day. why would they continue supporting it everyday.
cores actions will cause more disruption to the REAL FULL node count than anything ever envisioned before
*(emphasis on the literal neon hint that lightning is a separate network)


as for segwit. the way it treats data and decides what nodes it prefers to talk to or not. even the pruned mode changes the whole node network philosophy

but although segwit is not the full definition of an altcoin.. its far more altcoiny than core calling other implementations an altcoin

shoot and terrorise people in africa to make them leave. then take their land and resources and build skyscrapers.
shoot and terrorise people in iraq to make them leave. then take their land and resources and build skyscrapers.
shoot and terrorise people in syria to make them leave. then take their land and resources and build skyscrapers.

notice that before the year 2000, syria wasnt really on rothchilds portfolio.. now it is
"bank of syria and oversea's" 2004
"Banque Bemo Saudi Fransi" 2004
(along with other subsidiaries)

notice that before the year 2000, iraq wasnt really on rothchilds portfolio.. now it is
"Trade Bank of Iraq" 2003
(along with the central banks and subsidiaries)

The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned by the Rothschild Family are:
Cuba
North Korea
Iran
syria

though that was 2011, things are changing.
first the rothschilds introduce their 'foreign aid banks' then their commercial banks lastly they take over the central banks.

not many countries left but you can see why there are conflicts