BTC feeling the realtive market Cap decline

[jubalix]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

You are right of course. But as you've noticed, a lot of people are trying very hard not to get your point.

I know I know it blows my mind....how is it they are not seeing this .... how are they so entrenched in their positions while their house burns down they say .... we both need the tap turned on more, I want to use the wrench I want to use the shifter and they fail to agree, worse still its almost as if they in habit the same body and one hand is against the other.

The tragedy is watching this all unfold, when everything is in hand to solve it.

I see the miners will have paper weights, and I would hate to be a miner that owes money, as you wll likely have some very interesting people visiting you and core, will be left without anything to core about and drift of to LTC et.al, while loosing most of their BTC value.

In the context of BTC is all about consensus, the cannot get achieve this.

Matthew 10:36

[paul gatt]

99% of the coins are scam. 99% of the ETH ICOs are vaporware or have no real use-cases.

Like my thinking, I suppose most of the altcoins carry the nature of the scam. It seems that any altcoins also start with the ETH ICOs, and the information that they give is fake. And this is becoming popular, I used to hate atlcoin when I knew it, however, instead of throwing it away, I took advantage of it to earn more bitcoin.

[jubalix]

99% of the coins are scam. 99% of the ETH ICOs are vaporware or have no real use-cases.

Like my thinking, I suppose most of the altcoins carry the nature of the scam. It seems that any altcoins also start with the ETH ICOs, and the information that they give is fake. And this is becoming popular, I used to hate atlcoin when I knew it, however, instead of throwing it away, I took advantage of it to earn more bitcoin.

lets say 99% or Alts are scams

We have over 1000 alts which mean at least 1~10 will not be scams, 1~10 are legit.

Same again for ETH ICO's. it take a 1000 failures or more to get a good one.

I think we are forced to hedge into some of the more *legitimate* alts just as insurance against BTC problems

[Lauda]

Your changeing the goal posts here and not including why. First it was fixing quadratic, now you want segwit (the rest of it as well). You need to set out more precisely enumerate up front the list of non negotiable's in your mind and why to properly elucidiate and do justice to your position.

Bullshit and you know it. Segwit is the stepping stone to fixing quadratic. Use your brain.

Many scale better, or have solutions now, LTC, NEM much better TPS, possibly Byteball, IOTA. 3~4 TPS just is not sufficient for the usage we see wanting to use the BlockChain.

"Scale better" without even having "scale"? Nonsense. Go back to school.

Why are you stuck/persist in this binary mindset?

ETH is cancer. It is on the opposite specter of the whole vision that was set forth by Satoshi, i.e. the reason for which we are here in the first place.

You are attacking the character of the coins NEM and XRP, by name calling them. You are not setting out a bundle of reasons for your objections. Rather just use an expletive. Maybe that expletive is justified, but you gave no reasons as to why, excepting now we have extracted a few, as in use case,

No, that's not how this works. There is no ad hominem fallacy in this case and I do not plan on serving you information on a plate.

Even if your right, ETC is available to anyone that does not like ETH/DOA, which you did not address, and is orthognal to any of your issues raised.

Completely irrelevant to anything that I've written.

In the alternative, your not right because the code base allowed something to occur in eth that cannot occur now via the DOA or DOA like attacks. The is by class similar to what happened to BTC. In fact in the BTC case, new coins were created, in the ETH/DOA case it was a reallocation of existing coins.

Stop leaching from Vitalik kool-aid and use your head. The bug in Bitcoin can not be compared to the attack on the DAO. The closest thing that it can be compared to is the alleged hacking of Mt.Gox, which we did not bail out.

99% of the coins are scam. 99% of the ETH ICOs are vaporware or have no real use-cases.

Like my thinking, I suppose most of the altcoins carry the nature of the scam. It seems that any altcoins also start with the ETH ICOs, and the information that they give is fake. And this is becoming popular, I used to hate atlcoin when I knew it, however, instead of throwing it away, I took advantage of it to earn more bitcoin.

Your thinking is very much correct. It's completely absurd that scams or things with no use-cases can have any kind of value yet alone have market caps worth millions. This is all orchestrated by Poloniex and the group pumping with it.

[Yakamoto]

My question becomes why anyone cares about the market cap dominance of literally all other alts versus Bitcoin right now.

If it truly mattered, then we would have more people talking about it. But when you have every shitcoin on the market being pumped (the top 5 now all have market caps above $1B what the fuck) and the market cap for everything has been pushed to $50B it is completely irrelevant because EVERYTHING is so overvalued it doesn't matter anymore.

If anything, the volume matters more. And Bitcoin is the only coin breaking $300m volume per 24h right now.

The entire altcoin market is pumped and stupidly overvalued with nothing to back it up. I'm almost tempted to have shorts ready for a majority of them.

[pooya87]

Market cap story time:

once upon a time bitcoin had 16,000,000 (16 million) coin and was worth $1600 so its marketcap was nearly 26,000,000,000 (26 billion).

so the scientist went hard at work, working day and night in their mathematics lab to come up with a solution to defeat bitcoin at market cap.
"Eureka!" an excited little kid was shouting, standing in the dark corner of the lab.
other scientists rushed to see what he has found.
"We make more coins" he said slyly.
"we make 70,000,000 (70 million) coins, and never put a cap on that number so in a short while we reach 91,000,000 and after a couple of months we will be at 300,000,000 (300 mil) coin" he continued.
"but what about the price?" a scientist murmured.
"Don't you worry about that, we keep the first 70 million coins to ourselves and buy more in the pump and dumps. we have banks to support us. soon with 300 million we don't need price, we can easily take over bitcoin's market cap with a small price of $86".

"what about bitcoin price?" an old timer said.
"don't you worry, we have a lot of shills spreading FUD about bitcoin 24/7. and then we also start a spam attack on the network to heat everything up" the kid said with his eyes sparkling.

the scientists went out to celebrate their new find with bubbly Cider.

The End

[jubalix]

Your changeing the goal posts here and not including why. First it was fixing quadratic, now you want segwit (the rest of it as well). You need to set out more precisely enumerate up front the list of non negotiable's in your mind and why to properly elucidiate and do justice to your position.

Bullshit and you know it. Segwit is the stepping stone to fixing quadratic. Use your brain.

Ad hominem, also why do you need he segregate witness part, you originally only insisted on quadratic.

Many scale better, or have solutions now, LTC, NEM much better TPS, possibly Byteball, IOTA. 3~4 TPS just is not sufficient for the usage we see wanting to use the BlockChain.

"Scale better" without even having "scale"? Nonsense. Go back to school.

No substantive argument:: ignores the differing algo's another would be nimblewimble;

Why are you stuck/persist in this binary mindset?

ETH is cancer. It is on the opposite specter of the whole vision that was set forth by Satoshi, i.e. the reason for which we are here in the first place.

[/quote]
Orthogonal argument, talking about hedging by value with very little cost to BTC position is not EQ to X algo is cancer.

You are attacking the character of the coins NEM and XRP, by name calling them. You are not setting out a bundle of reasons for your objections. Rather just use an expletive. Maybe that expletive is justified, but you gave no reasons as to why, excepting now we have extracted a few, as in use case,

No, that's not how this works. There is no ad hominem fallacy in this case and I do not plan on serving you information on a plate.

Apparently has a rebuttal but refuses to enlighten us.

Also note for clarity while could, I chose not to use "ad hominem" in my next exposition of the point just to close the gate on any possibility of that argument sounding again.

Even if your right, ETC is available to anyone that does not like ETH/DOA, which you did not address, and is orthognal to any of your issues raised.

Completely irrelevant to anything that I've written.

Your right it is irrelevant to what you have written because what you wrote is orthogonal to my points  being ETC is available to you and satisfies your criteria, You have agreed your own written words are irrelevant to my point made. I agree to that as well.

In the alternative, your not right because the code base allowed something to occur in eth that cannot occur now via the DOA or DOA like attacks. The is by class similar to what happened to BTC. In fact in the BTC case, new coins were created, in the ETH/DOA case it was a reallocation of existing coins.

Stop leaching from Vitalik kool-aid and use your head. The bug in Bitcoin can not be compared to the attack on the DAO. The closest thing that it can be compared to is the alleged hacking of Mt.Gox, which we did not bail out.

No substantive attack, Mt. Gox occurred off chain....again orthogonal argument.

I must say, your the most entertaining witness to have on cross Lauda

[Lauda]

Ad hominem, also why do you need he segregate witness part, you originally only insisted on quadratic.

There is no ad hominem. You're starting to become delusional. Segwit's sighash is the first step to fixing the quadratic validation time. Looks like you don't know anything about any of this.

No substantive argument:: ignores the differing algo's another would be nimblewimble;

The argument is there. You don't either understand it or you can't refute it.

Orthogonal argument, talking about hedging by value with very little cost to BTC position is not EQ to X algo is cancer.

Orthogonal argument. Conclusion: ETH is cancer.

Apparently has a rebuttal but refuses to enlighten us.

Learn to use Google.

Your right it is irrelevant to what you have written because what you wrote is orthogonal to my points  being ETC is available to you and satisfies your criteria, You have agreed your own written words are irrelevant to my point made. I agree to that as well.

False comparison fallacy and irrelevant point. Whether it exists or not is entirely irrelevant.

No substantive attack, Mt. Gox occurred off chain....again orthogonal argument.

Mt.Gox was on-chain, due to TX malleability (or the claim of). That's the closest you get in Bitcoin to the DAO disaster.

I must say, your the most entertaining witness to have on cross Lauda

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, is close to the BU shills. Keep it up and you may get offered a job by Ver. Degree not as useful nowadays?

[pooya87]

looks like the whale responsible for putting up the fake buy walls on kraken was getting high and forgot to do it. i wonder if he is going to get fired from the shill army or not. you know, from the payroll.



got it from the wall

[dinofelis]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.
It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

I think that this is:
1) very good
2) a logical consequence of crypto's dynamics

The reason why I think that it is very good, is manifold, but mainly, we know that a market with a monopolist is not very competitive.  Bitcoin was the de facto monopolist of the crypto landscape, because it has its first-mover effect still going, and it has a larger network effect.  This is what was holding crypto back, because bitcoin is the oldest technology, and many newer crypto ('alt coins') have vastly improved technology over all the problems that bitcoin has.  This is normal: the Ford-T was a successful invention, but in a competitive market, one moves on ; while in crypto, Ford-T was still the monopolist.

A market in which there is a market leader with more than 80% of market share, is a de facto monopolist, and kills essentially the competition ; a market where the market leader has a small share, is a fully competitive and efficient market.  This is why I think it is very good that bitcoin is losing its monopoly and stops killing crypto competition.  BTW, the very fact that we have "bitcoin" and "alt coins", and that "alt coins" are (stupidly) expressed in "bitcoin" demonstrates the asymmetry of the market.   If this can finally be corrected and become a fully competitive market, I can only think of that as positive.


The reason why I think that this evolution is a logical consequence of what crypto is, goes as follows.   A currency (tokens with which one buys mainly stuff with merchants and gets paid in) has a strong "monopolizing" effect, because the utility of a currency increases with its network size.  As such, currencies in competition usually form a natural market monopoly: the currency with the biggest effect "eats" all the others.  This was a reason why people said that only bitcoin could thrive.

However, crypto is not a currency.  Crypto is a speculative "greater fool" asset, where, due to the very deflationary emission curves of most of them, one can win a lot of money by being "early adopter", profiting from monumental amounts of seigniorage.  This has been massively the case with bitcoin, who has made a few very big fortunes.  The point, however, with such systems is that the more they "mature", the less speculative gain there is to be expected.
And, contrary to a set of currencies in competition, where the biggest network effect amplifies the monopoly of one, a set of competing speculative assets will rather "distribute" market share, because the most interesting speculative assets are not the biggest ones, where less profit is to be made.  

Thus the nature of being "speculative assets" makes that there's a natural tendency for the smaller market caps to grow quicker than the large market caps, bringing more uniformity in the market.

You can't hope to quickly do a x5 on bitcoin ; but it has recently been done with several big alt coins.  As such, for speculators, medium alt coins are more attractive than bitcoin, until these grow to the order of bitcoin's market cap.  Best speculation is probably a spread over many alt coins, as is usually the case in highly speculative markets.

This is why bitcoin's market domination is falling.  Bitcoin can still be a market leader, with, say, 10% market share.  That would be a healthy market.

[jubalix]

Ad hominem, also why do you need he segregate witness part, you originally only insisted on quadratic.

There is no ad hominem. You're starting to become delusional. Segwit's sighash is the first step to fixing the quadratic validation time. Looks like you don't know anything about any of this.

There are other solutions, I am using quadratic as a place holder for that issue, if you want another why not FLEXTRANS solution to meet your initial objection / comment.

No substantive argument:: ignores the differing algo's another would be nimblewimble;

The argument is there. You don't either understand it or you can't refute it.

I did, by giving and example of an algo that is massively more efficient than BTC, niblewimble

Orthogonal argument, talking about hedging by value with very little cost to BTC position is not EQ to X algo is cancer.

Orthogonal argument. Conclusion: ETH is cancer.

ETH is cancer, Q.E.D.

You and others may appreciate how that does not quite constitute a proof, though it may make for the shortest white paper ever.

Apparently has a rebuttal but refuses to enlighten us.

Learn to use Google.

No substantive argument, not even a search term, they even have a let me google that for you if you want:: please let me
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=seach+terms+how+to+use+google

Your right it is irrelevant to what you have written because what you wrote is orthogonal to my points  being ETC is available to you and satisfies your criteria, You have agreed your own written words are irrelevant to my point made. I agree to that as well.

False comparison fallacy and irrelevant point. Whether it exists or not is entirely irrelevant.

Yes you did make a false comparison to the point I initially raised, we both agree on this.

No substantive attack, Mt. Gox occurred off chain....again orthogonal argument.

Mt.Gox was on-chain, due to TX malleability (or the claim of). That's the closest you get in Bitcoin to the DAO disaster.
Well Karples may have us believe that...if so I accept I am wrong on that point. I hope you will forgive me If I don't quite believe Karples version of events.

I must say, your the most entertaining witness to have on cross Lauda

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, is close to the BU shills. Keep it up and you may get offered a job by Ver. Degree not as useful nowadays?

People don't make concerted  argument without reason, and self interest does not always make the reason bad, in fact it make be a manifestation of the importance of that reason. It's all part of the the conversation in the search for truth, I aim to be untouched by the deleterious emotive feelings that can hinder moving on or not accepting evolution to an improved idea. I take no position on BU or Segwit beyond something has to be done, and what is happening now is at best tragic. I want BTC to succeed and see every reason why it should.

[Amph]

what are you talking about have nothing to do with the success of bitcoin, it's just mean that more money are in altcoin in comparison to the past, but still bitcoin managed to increase to a very high level

remember that investors jump on altcoin to have more bitcoin, but soem of them like ETH are too big too die already, ETH is the only one that can pose a threat to bitcoin, the other coins have an insignificant maretcap

[Kakmakr]

I see this as a huge FOMO campaign, where a bunch of people in Japan were exposed to Crypto currency for the first time. The government legalized it and more people started to use it. They bought Bitcoin and soon realized that there are other coins too, and they started to buy some of that too.

They told the neighbor about their new Crypto currency investment and the neighbor not wanting to miss out on something has started to buy some too, and this is what is driving the Alt coin boom.

They will soon realize most of these other Alt coins are Shitcoins and they will start buying bitcoin again. ^smile^

[franky1]

market caps are bubble numbers of meaningless stats.

anyone can create an altcoin with a trillion coins. sell just 1 coin for 1 dollar and it instantly calculates to a trillion dollar market cap.
thats how manipulatable and empty of meaning the "market cap" is

as for drama of "bitcoins falling cap" lol im laughing
the cap is higher than its ever been

this time last year it was not even $16bill. now its over $25bill. (even if the numbers are bubble numbers, i still laugh at people shouting doomsdays)

screw it
XRP has over 37b coins in circulation.
even if XRP only traded 1 coin on an exchange. and some person made it trade for $1
then the "cap" would exceed bitcoin.

this does not mean XRP is suddenly better than bitcoin.

the market cap is a meaningless bubble number.
there is NOT $26billion fiat sitting in bank accounts backing bitcoin
there is NOT $8billion fiat sitting in bank accounts baking ether
there is NOT $6billion fiat sitting in bank accounts backing xrp

i dont know why people are obsessed with the market cap, when its a meaningless number

[Lauda]

There are other solutions, I am using quadratic as a place holder for that issue, if you want another why not FLEXTRANS solution to meet your initial objection / comment.

There are no other solutions. The only one that attempts to fix the same problem is Flextrans which is basically a Segwit second class ripoff. It isn't even nearly as tested as Segwit, does not have supermajority of developers in favor of it and it requires a hard fork. Therefore, Segwit is the desirable fix.

I did, by giving and example of an algo that is massively more efficient than BTC, niblewimble

First learn the real name, which is mimblewimble. Secondly, learn why it has a high TPS and the cons which that brings.

Yes you did make a false comparison to the point I initially raised, we both agree on this.

Incorrect. You made a false comparison.

Well Karples may have us believe that...if so I accept I am wrong on that point. I hope you will forgive me If I don't quite believe Karples version of events.

There is no way to prove it from this distance, which is why I mentioned that he claimed this happened.

I take no position on BU or Segwit beyond something has to be done, and what is happening now is at best tragic. I want BTC to succeed and see every reason why it should.

If you're a passive bystander or in support of a hostile takeover, you don't really want BTC to succeed (hint: It already succeeded).

market caps are bubble numbers of meaningless stats.

Someone understands it.

[iamTom123]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

How is BTC declining? it's the solid number one coin and we are coming from an awesome uptrend hitting all time highs pretty much daily... so I don't get it. You mean the marketcap dominance? Well, a lot of people is speculating into other coins because they want to get rich quick, and some altcoins can give %500 gains. LTC has had %700 gains since it started going up thanks to segwit. Who doesn't hate themselves for not buying in? I want to buy some too, because as long as segwit is not in BTC, LTC has uptrend potential. So yeah, the scaling wars have made that BTC is not as high as it could be, but nontheless, BTC performance is still spectacular.

I am sure that OP has a little misunderstanding here. Just because there seems to a decrease in the Bitcoin dominance does not mean that Bitcoin is actually decreasing in terms of value. The whole cryptomarket is right now expanding and many "investors" are also looking into the altcoin market that is why in terms of percentage of market dominance Bitcoin is affected. Those numbers are actually nothing and just there for us to behold.

[dinofelis]

market caps are bubble numbers of meaningless stats.

anyone can create an altcoin with a trillion coins. sell just 1 coin for 1 dollar and it instantly calculates to a trillion dollar market cap.
thats how manipulatable and empty of meaning the "market cap" is

This is of course true.  But it applies as well to bitcoin as to others.   So, essentially, you can measure the kind of validity of a market cap as a function of the trading volume.  I agree that even that is not a full proof: you can trade the same single coin back and forth and pump a market cap very high.

Another indication of relative market share might be the shares in trading volumes of coins.  Well, there, bitcoin is only around 30% or so right at this moment (bitcoin volume: 1.3 billion, total volume 2.9 billion).

Given these values, it seems that bitcoin is actually having an over-estimated market cap with a bigger over-estimation than its peers, and that bitcoin's "crypto market share" is somewhere between 30% and 50% or so at this moment.

[jubalix]

There are other solutions, I am using quadratic as a place holder for that issue, if you want another why not FLEXTRANS solution to meet your initial objection / comment.

There are no other solutions. The only one that attempts to fix the same problem is Flextrans which is basically a Segwit second class ripoff. It isn't even nearly as tested as Segwit, does not have supermajority of developers in favor of it and it requires a hard fork. Therefore, Segwit is the desirable fix.

Your objection was must solve the quadratic problem for blocksize increase. Fair enough, I agree. I point out that segwit is not a condition precedent to that part of the code, you counter it is a condition desirable or precedent, I say it could be a road block to BU or other, so why not compromise, and point to flex trans, which offers code that also solves the Quad problem. My point being, using a solution to a issue, you initially pointed, but have not really given a reason why this means all of segwit has to come with it.

My point being I am trying to reaches a compromise that lets us go forward.

I did, by giving and example of an algo that is massively more efficient than BTC, niblewimble

First learn the real name, which is mimblewimble. Secondly, learn why it has a high TPS and the cons which that brings.

we both misstype, as you did earlier "digital cold" you meant "digital gold" I think, I was gracious enough at the time not to harp on it. You would be better served by doing the same.

Yes there are often trade offs, but TPS solutions have market appeal and there are superior ones to the current state of BTC was the contention. You admit mimblewimble has a higher TPS and lower ovehead. My point was there are other algos that provide solutions to scaleing, more efficiently than BTC. I feel BTC is trying to be an everyman, and being squashed between ETH, High TPS, and Backbone solutions, better anonymity. BTC with segwit, LTN, nimblewimble, tubmlebit may solve this.
  

Yes you did make a false comparison to the point I initially raised, we both agree on this.

Incorrect. You made a false comparison.

I made the initial proposition that ETC ($300M) was available to your complaint of "not mutable trash like ETH." You did not address this any of your responses.

Well Karples may have us believe that...if so I accept I am wrong on that point. I hope you will forgive me If I don't quite believe Karples version of events.

There is no way to prove it from this distance, which is why I mentioned that he claimed this happened.

So this example can not be raised [by you] with any confidence so end of that argument for you

I take no position on BU or Segwit beyond something has to be done, and what is happening now is at best tragic. I want BTC to succeed and see every reason why it should.

If you're a passive bystander or in support of a hostile takeover [/Snip]

This is exactly the mindset I am talking about one that has hedged any alternative into it must be them and not me at all costs

Anyway at least your narrowing the issues now arguments you have abandoned or I have clarified

[1] The Bitcoin development process and team is by far superior to any other altcoin. <-Pointed out the does not matter if salient changes not included

[2] The developer do not decide anything, thus this statement makes no sense. The developer can merely propose and develop changes.<- clarified by dev I meant development not Devs.

[3] Both XRP and NEM are complete shitcoins. No reasons elaborated.

[4]Then go complain to your pool/miners which are holding the network hostage. Segwit will activate, with or without the miners <- pointed out I am not arguing in specific pools or even segwit etc but towards the implication in general stagnation

[5] There is no such thing as the "Flippening". That is complete bullshit made up by r/btc fanatics who are actually deeply invested in altcoins <--All terms are made up terms. You have no credible argument here. It has a meaning that many could attribute to it as to when BTC becomes less important in all aspects that an ALT and cannot recover.

[6] Using gox as malleability as an argument for anything on chain because we don't know what happened.

[7] ETH is cancer <--does not provide substantive arguments, excepting mutability does not address ETC on point

[jubalix]

its so tragic to see the %BTC decline of market cap, when there is much usage of btc now, and what did we do at the very inflection point devolved in a scaling war with implications of this on every issue of importance.

It seems many Bit coiners ignore this, or discount it, just call everything else a scam.

How is BTC declining? it's the solid number one coin and we are coming from an awesome uptrend hitting all time highs pretty much daily... so I don't get it. You mean the marketcap dominance? Well, a lot of people is speculating into other coins because they want to get rich quick, and some altcoins can give %500 gains. LTC has had %700 gains since it started going up thanks to segwit. Who doesn't hate themselves for not buying in? I want to buy some too, because as long as segwit is not in BTC, LTC has uptrend potential. So yeah, the scaling wars have made that BTC is not as high as it could be, but nontheless, BTC performance is still spectacular.

I am sure that OP has a little misunderstanding here. Just because there seems to a decrease in the Bitcoin dominance does not mean that Bitcoin is actually decreasing in terms of value. The whole cryptomarket is right now expanding and many "investors" are also looking into the altcoin market that is why in terms of percentage of market dominance Bitcoin is affected. Those numbers are actually nothing and just there for us to behold.

I accept that BTC is by far the reserve currency status even if it goes to 30% or something just due to volume, trading pairs and fiat in and out.

the market cap and volume, as well as tech progress even though a lot of it is hype and scamcoins, still paints a largely one way graph, and that is a decline as to trade volume and percentage market cap.

[Lauda]

Your objection was must solve the quadratic problem for blocksize increase. Fair enough, I agree. I point out that segwit is not a condition precedent to that part of the code, you counter it is a condition desirable or precedent.

Segwit is the initial solution for quadratic validation time, ready, tested, deployed on several networks. Do you have brain damage? Don't whine about any ad hominem again.

Yes there are often trade offs, but TPS solutions have market appeal and there are superior ones to the current state of BTC was the contention.

There is no indicator of market appeal for mimblewimble besides it being a Bitcoin sidechain.
  

So this example can not be raised [by you] with any confidence so end of that argument for you

It is a valid argument and destroys yours in a jiffy. The rest of your mambo jumbo is not worth responding to. You've lost on every single point raised by "clarifying, complaining, whining or misusing fallacies".
Enjoy your shitcoins: