Satoshi's original idea...

[DooMAD]

there has literally been hundreds of proposals. over many years but they never get passed the cabin of core dev moderators that only want to follow their own roadmap, and not actually be open to diverse community consensus.

open source development is merit-based. it's not a charity or a lottery---no one cares if "hundreds of proposals" exist if they're not worthy of coding, testing and merging. core is like any other FOSS project. if a proposal can't reach rough consensus among core developers, why the hell would core implement it?

you should go code your own implementation or submit proposals for an alternative implementation like btcd, knots, bcoin, libbitcoin, bitcore, etc. what you're talking about is a big part of the reason alternative implementations exist at all.

the truth is, your feelings aren't shared by the market. since bitcoin is an opt-in, voluntary network, it's up to the actual users to reject core and pursue an alternative. if bitcoin users were opposed to core's development process, they'd run alternative/incompatible versions. a few actually do that, but the vast majority of node operators don't. your issue is with them, not core developers.

Thank you for stating it in a far more eloquent fashion than I can normally manage.  I've been saying something along those lines (admittedly with more insults included) to franky1 for weeks now.  I don't know if it's just willful ignorance on his part, or if his brain just isn't wired up in a way that allows him to comprehend it.  Bitcoin is working as intended.  There's no conspiracy.  There isn't an all-powerful entity pulling the strings behind the scenes.  It's just people freely choosing to run code that does what they want it to do.  I'm pretty sure that was Satoshi's original idea, so all is well.

[1714791622]

1714791622

[1714791622]

1714791622

[1714791622]

1714791622

[1714791622]

1714791622

[1714791622]

1714791622

[1714791622]

1714791622

[franky1]

Hahaha. I knew this would push some buttons. But if I was Bob wanting to send Alice some Bitcoins, doesn't Lightning require a user to open a channel to another peer and literally makes users send Bitcoins from one peer to another? Alice to Bob. Peer to peer.

Plus he was laughing because he got it.

1. that can be done without LN
2. the purpose of LN is routing (multiparty hops that need to be online and sign before even getting to destination)
3. the locking in and unlocking.. if you stay uptodate with concepts is factories(fortknox analogy)

may i wish you well in your independant research
hint: multisig, factories, watch towers, routing, being online(notpush)

if you only ever want to just pay 1 person repeatedly. you dont need LN.
thousands of users have been doing it for years without LN

have a nice day

[kvipcn]

I believe Satoshi realized how centralized the world financial system was and the huge charges taken from people when they transaction funds. This was some kind of an eye opener to introduce a system where people can send funds to another person without any third party involved. He realized that if he could create a peer to peer system, this will be much easier to send funds without any third party involvement.

[franky1]

the truth is, your feelings aren't shared by the market. since bitcoin is an opt-in, voluntary network, it's up to the actual users to reject core and pursue an alternative. if bitcoin users were opposed to core's development process, they'd run alternative/incompatible versions. a few actually do that, but the vast majority of node operators don't. your issue is with them, not core developers.

Thank you for stating it in a far more eloquent fashion than I can normally manage.  I've been saying something along those lines (admittedly with more insults included) to franky1 for weeks now.  I don't know if it's just willful ignorance on his part, or if his brain just isn't wired up in a way that allows him to comprehend it.  Bitcoin is working as intended.  There's no conspiracy.  There isn't an all-powerful entity pulling the strings behind the scenes.  It's just people freely choosing to run code that does what they want it to do.  I'm pretty sure that was Satoshi's original idea, so all is well.

what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..

the nodes and pools that actually did object adding code that would ban segwit blocks. cores code just ignored the vote (reject block and ban ip nodes) to make it appear that core got 95%

READ THE DANG CODE!! not your friends PR

the laugh of the "voluntary opt-in".. is funny
but you forget to mention there was no consensus veto to prevent.
it was a mandatory tactic not a consensus tactic

now try ignoring your friends PR stuff and do some independant research.. like i have told ya to try. i even done so nicely without insults

[franky1]

now those poking the bear meanderers should hopefully be busy and quiet while they do their own research outside their cabin fever of core defense

lets get back on topic
satoshi idea was not a capitalist bank take over. it was a open diverse alternative to the capitalist banker model.
something that would help should another banker crises occur where people can use something else and not be reliant on one system

years before 2009 the cypherpunks were always looking for an alternative. but it was satoshi that patched together lots of idea's into the unique model we now know as bitcoin. satoshis personal reason for getting involved can be seen in the quote in the genesis block

[Reid]

mining pools do not set rules. they just collate transactions in a format that must meet the rules of the network.
if its not in the format. it gets rejected.
all pools can do is decide to include or exclude transactions.

A lot of what you said makes sense, but if the bitcoin price is too low and energy and associated production costs to mine bitcoin are too high, why would somebody bother mining a bitcoin, if it costs more to mine than it does to purchase?

https://i.investopedia.com/image/jpeg/1520501899285/bitcoin_mining_costs_around_world_chart.jpg

A lot of the world is already priced out of bitcoin mining. Seems like if the price keeps declining only a handful of countries will find their mining operations to be profitable. That's why I brought up the whole "centralization" aspect. I realize this is a hypothetical situation, and also that mining pools don't set the rules, but they nevertheless have economic power and more say in how the network is run than normal nodes.

Actually that will be a good thing.
If this miners stops then the difficulty will be lower making it faster for transactions to be confirmed too.
Do you know there are still companies who wants to mine bitcoin and yet they cannot because it is still crowded.
It will be like before when bitcoin is still unknown to many.

Now about what the OP says.
Micropayments or transactions. Can we say that Satoshi is also on the poor side?
I mean, he would not see this kind of things happening in the world if he is already rich or something right?

Somehow I am still going back to my thread to know what made him do a huge effort for bitcoin.

[franky1]

So which developers have highlighted the issue that they've put a hold on innovation?  Because that sounds like something you're making up.  Stick to highlighting things that are actually true and I won't call you out on them.  It's really not that difficult to understand.  If you don't spread misinformation, I'll have no need to correct it.  And since you failed to answer last time, I'll ask again:
 

lukejr pulling out of the 2015 x2
gmax pulling out of the 2015 x2
both stating that onchain scaling is broke and other networks of non blockchains are the future
. and how it can be done without consensus

devs doing the UASF of again not wanting onchain scaling but instead just wanting transaction format changes that are compatible with another network thats not blockchain

3 years on and they are still saying that onchain scaling aint needed
Luke JR actually went on to say blockchain needs to DECREASE blockscaling to make blocks tx fees higher..(facepalm)

now go learn the history of BITCOIN from actual research. and not just auto defend core. its getting real funny that you are defending devs more then the network.
anyway.. all you seem to want to do is meander topics away from what bitcoin was,is and should be. just to defend what core are mutating bitcoin to be.. a stagnant expensive blockchain in the hopes people use managed accounts network that require counterpart authorisation... (facepalm)

[figmentofmyass]

what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..

segwit was a soft fork. soft forks are compatible with the current consensus since they merely add compatible rules. at the node level, you can't "vote no" on a soft fork because your node already considers it compatible (assuming miners are enforcing it).

that's why older versions are completely compatible with segwit. it's a matter of network protocol, not "voting". as such, it makes no sense to view legacy nodes as "no votes". legacy nodes are opted into the consensus already, and segwit was compatible with the consensus.

also, about this "voting" shit: consensus is not democratic. it's not a "voting" system. you either opt in to the consensus by running a node, or you opt out of the consensus by shutting down your node and leaving the network. running an incompatible node = opting out. you can fix your node to reject segwit blocks. but you'll be opting out of the consensus.

[franky1]

what you both have yet to research is that the august event was not a level playing field consensus vote
those that did not upgrade to latest segwit node to 'opt-in' were treated not as a no vote. but as a second class (downstream/filtered) wallet which had no power to object.
they were not allowed to reject/ban segwit blocks. instead they were handed pidgeon english voting cards that read as if nothing has changed. basically lied to about what consensus is and had no vote..

segwit was a soft fork. soft forks are compatible with the current consensus since they merely add compatible rules. at the node level, you can't "vote no" on a soft fork because your node already considers it compatible (assuming miners are enforcing it).

that's why older versions are completely compatible with segwit. it's a matter of network protocol, not "voting". as such, it makes no sense to view legacy nodes as "no votes". legacy nodes are opted into the consensus already, and segwit was compatible with the consensus.

also, about this "voting" shit: consensus is not democratic. it's not a "voting" system. you either opt in to the consensus by running a node, or you opt out of the consensus by shutting down your node and leaving the network. running an incompatible node = opting out. you can fix your node to reject segwit blocks. but you'll be opting out of the consensus.

old nodes are not compatible. they are handed a pidgeon english translation.. theres a difference
its why even the devs clearly pointed out that old nodes become downstream/filtered(their buzzwords) nodes instead of part of the main relay network. they even drew a picture to make it easy to understand.

old nodes do not relay blocks to segwit nodes nor relay segwit transactions. they only receive a stripped down block and then sit on the edge of the network

old nodes are handed stripped data to BYPASS a consensus mechanism that would otherwise have gotten segwit blocks rejected
thats why luke JR done what he done. it was not a softfork in a sense of consensus. it was a bypass to avoid a consensus event. luke JR even said so himself that it bypasses the requirement of a consensus

but the funny part is. because they didnt get 95% through the "compatibility" trick.. and for months they only sat at 35-40% they needed to then do a mandatory threat eviction trick to FAKE getting 95% by literally ignoring/rejecting opposers.
that is like apartheid. not giving the whole community a vote and ignoring a certain side of the community and only counting those that agree..

the fair, level playing field solution would have been to realise they were not getting it. and then recode a bip that included what the whole community would have been happier with. and thus not need to mandate anything

anyway
if you actually look at the data a old node gets. and that it no longer fully validates all data but just blindly passes things.. you will see the shoddy crap. if it was compatible then old nodes would be on par and same level.. you know still relaying full data and validating full data

old nodes dont get full data. they dont get the now full true blockchain. trying to say they are "compatible" is downplaying how old nodes are not actually full validating/archiving nodes of full true data. if you truly think old nodes are compatible and same level playing field then you need to do some serious research. and not just from buddies who just repeat the same story. but actually get the data and look at it

dang all these core defenders cant be assed to even look at code or data and just wanna protect a dev.. even if its at the cost of just letting the network not excel..(facepalm)
its becoming funny how you lot are protecting certain devs, even if you have not read or understood what the devs you protect have actually admitted to. which adds more proof you lack research and are just trying to cause social drama for entertainment.

maybe its time you lot spend more time understanding and reading data, statistics and researching what actually happened and care more about the effects it has on the network. and less time just chatting about what you think the dev you protect wants.
care about the network. not a person and especially not a person you have not researched to even know what they actually said

anyway. your meanders to turn topics into 'protect a dev' are foolish. so spend some time researching. and maybe one day you will actually start to care less about devs and care more about the network

[Wind_FURY]

Hahaha. I knew this would push some buttons. But if I was Bob wanting to send Alice some Bitcoins, doesn't Lightning require a user to open a channel to another peer and literally makes users send Bitcoins from one peer to another? Alice to Bob. Peer to peer.

Plus he was laughing because he got it.

1. that can be done without LN

How, and what do you have in mind?

2. the purpose of LN is routing (multiparty hops that need to be online and sign before even getting to destination)

I know, I was merely pointing out the difference between a Bitcoin on-chain transaction which is broadcast over the network, and an LN transaction that literally sends the Bitcoins peer to peer.

3. the locking in and unlocking.. if you stay uptodate with concepts is factories(fortknox analogy)

Channel factories? Can you give us the links on the relevant information about it?

may i wish you well in your independant research
hint: multisig, factories, watch towers, routing, being online(notpush)

if you only ever want to just pay 1 person repeatedly. you dont need LN.
thousands of users have been doing it for years without LN

have a nice day

Give us the links of what you read and I shall find links of my own and let us compare notes.

[EmmaBen]

"The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services."

The above quote is perhaps the most believable proof that he was perhaps also worried about the inability of the poor masses to fully adopt the technology because of transaction costs which would bar them from most minimum possible p2p transfers. This indicates that he actually wanted a decentralised global financial tool for the least possible kind of transactions which is really possible for the "underprivileged", giving them complete charge over their own finances.

yea which is why many detest how devs have PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake. and instead only twisted bitcoin to be compatible for other networks of convenience which would require authorisations and fee's away from the blockchain

But why should developers refuse to innovate upon the mother architecture of bitcoin? Is it that the is non to be done again?
"... for bitcoin's sake". Is it to preserve the original ideology that they do it, or what exactly? You sound like a developer, which I think you are. Technologies may evolve pass current norms in a short span of years, you know that. If that happens when devs refuse to continually adapt, will bitcoin still be bitcoin? Do you think your chosen strategy to "PURPOSEFULLY put a hold on innovating bitcoin for bitcoins sake" is really a good one. Or, is there something I am missing

[Eraldo Coil]

All i know is that satoshi know that there's a trading system per country and international. But most of the people can't afford the starting fee and don't know how it runs and it doesn't really helps individuals but only the company. So, satoshi made an alternative market or system that solve all the problem and now we're using it.

[franky1]

windfury and your cabin fever camp.
in regards to LN
go learn ELTOO
multisig
12decimal transactions
offchain transactions
byzantine generals problem

factories
users pay into a factories address. funds are locked onchain
channels are not funded with the locked balance input
factory makes a OFFCHAIN payment to a channel
channel is funded with a OFFCHAIN IOU from factoriy
channels settlement is not a onchain broadcast, but a OFFCHAIN payment back to the factory with a request that the factory broadcasts a fund unlock onchain, or to re make new paymnt offchain to a new channel.
much like locking gold into fortknox and then playing with paper until you demand fortknow release whatever gold your paper allows you to have back

spend some time learning it in detail, run some scenarios. actually use LN
as for how people can do transactions without LN go learn about multisig, then run some scenarios
maybe think about how with a joint bank account with your spouse, you dont need a special bank tool to then agree with your spouse who gets what. even a post-it note on a fridge will do

oh and when you get to the lightbulb moment of the flaws of a post-it note. you may dawn on the idea of LN's flaw known as the byzantine generals issue(one party can edit their node and no community can validate the new orders/rules the edited node has. and the counterparty using autopilot and new viewing the raw tx data will blindly just follow orders handed to them or get blackmailed into a chargeback(revocation))

in regards to core not being satoshi's idea
go learn consensus
mandatory hard fork(august 1st 2017 contentious hard fork)
trojan soft fork(mid august 2017 consensus bypass using the stripped block data of pidgeon english data)

yea august was comedy gold. performing a mandatory contentious hard fork to just be able to then do a consensus bypass softfork... truly amazing comedy backflipping happened.. all because core didnt get a 95% vote without the circus acts(only 40% vote without circus acts and 3 card trick games)

many people for years have been doing offchain stuff without LN. exchanges have been doing it behind the scenes (research arbitrage reserves). people have even done 2party atomic swaps without LN for years

anyway.. instead of trying to meander topics and just poke the bear
do some research
i have given you hints for months. but you still ask the same questions and then stick fingers in your ears. so just go do some research first this time

[DooMAD]

So which developers have highlighted the issue that they've put a hold on innovation?  Because that sounds like something you're making up.  Stick to highlighting things that are actually true and I won't call you out on them.  

lukejr pulling out of the 2015 x2
gmax pulling out of the 2015 x2
both stating that onchain scaling is broke and other networks of non blockchains are the future
. and how it can be done without consensus

If the only form of "innovation" you are capable of recoginsing is a blockweight increase, then I can see why this must be so confusing for you.  Saying that it's not practical to have every single last transaction, no matter how small, recorded on-chain isn't very resource-efficient is not the same as saying that on-chain is "broke".  Your interpretation is wrong.  As usual, you're taking things to extremes.  You have a clear idea of what you think Bitcoin should be and you can't stand the fact that a large majority of the userbase couldn't care less what you think.

Luke JR actually went on to say blockchain needs to DECREASE blockscaling to make blocks tx fees higher..(facepalm)

How many nodes do you see enforcing that proposal?  One last time in case you still haven't grasped it, anyone can propose a change, but that proposal means nothing if people don't run the code to enforce it.

[Froy]

Was Satoshi's thinking of a real peer-to-peer cash system allowing micropayments to happen or was he just wanting to make a threat and rebellion for the current scam financial system?

In the original white paper you can found he was aiming to bring to the world a peer-to-peer cash system and you can see also from the following original white paper Satoshi's quote:

While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.

So since the beginning Satoshi was indeed worried about the trust model the financial system keep from themselves.

In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions.

He was indeed, most worried about the trust issue rather than allowing micropayments with a peer-to-peer cash system. This was understandable because from the beginning nobody couldn't tell if the system proposed were going to be successful or not so was better first to solve the trust issue and mostly because the recent 2008 financial crisis.

Some other Satoshi's quote that suggest the aiming to micropayments:

The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services.  

So in conclusion you can say Satoshi indeed solve the trust issue of a centralized monetary system and although today Bitcoin is the most widely used cryptocurrency that allows wealth transfer in a decentralized way it also lack of the main features purposes that is to accomplish small casual transactions with lower costs.

So in my personal point of view I see Satoshi's first attempt to solve the centralized trust issue with a decentralized ledger called now blockchain but then for micropayments we found it's vulnerabilities and we call them scaling issues. So my hope is, in the 10th anniversary of Bitcoin we can retake his original idea and now with the research and advance of the decentralized systems we can found a better way to accomplish it's main idea.

I know it's just matter of time Bitcoin will solve all it's issues and reach the adoption and awareness it deserves all across the world  

Links: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

  

I think the advantages of bitcoin are not yet fully appreciated,we are now talking about new forks and a new generation of crypto, but in the bitcoin Protocol itself there are many functions that are not yet used.

[ubay]

The more days the bitcoin function gets more, it used to be used for peer to peer transactions. But now more developed, bitcoin can be used for buying and selling, for digital assets and others. Times will continue to change, so does the function of bitcoin.

[franky1]

If the only form of "innovation" you are capable of recoginsing is a blockweight increase, then I can see why this must be so confusing for you.  

you seem to think i am only wanting blockweight increase... seems you have stuck head in sand about many things.. and instead just heard your cabin fever friends suggest im just a big blocker...
(facepalm to the 100th degree)
the echoing accoustics of the cabin you sit with your friends repeating the same story to each other until you all beleive it to be true because its the only story you hear must give you headaches. maybe it really is worth you getting some fresh air and seeing beyond the wall of that cabin
have you yet tried to do some independant research away from your buddies?

Saying that it's not practical to have every single last transaction, no matter how small, recorded on-chain isn't very resource-efficient is not the same as saying that on-chain is "broke".  

shock horror.. im not the one saying its broke
further shock is when you find out who does
im the one saying bitcoin can scale... and saying it can scale in many ways (emphasis on thebitcoin network. not other networks pretending to be bitcoin layered)

Your interpretation is wrong.  As usual, you're taking things to extremes.  You have a clear idea of what you think Bitcoin should be and you can't stand the fact that a large majority of the userbase couldn't care less what you think.

again your arguing as if "bitcoin is broke" is my interpretation.... (facepalm)
nice meander but im just laughing
oh and not even 40% are using segwit now and not even 40 % are using LN.. should you actually want to do some stats checking.. yea even while pushing alot of people off the network or into non full validating nodes.. the actual utility and desire of segwit and LN is low...
heck even sipa still uses legacy transactions instead of his own invention of segwit.. true comedy

Luke JR actually went on to say blockchain needs to DECREASE blockscaling to make blocks tx fees higher..(facepalm)

How many nodes do you see enforcing that proposal?  One last time in case you still haven't grasped it, anyone can propose a change, but that proposal means nothing if people don't run the code to enforce it.

yet luke JR's proposals get to become BIPS.. yet other non core roadmap friendly proposals dont even make it to bip stage...
really shows core have community spirit.. and want to actually be a community REFERENCE.. but oh wait, you stepped over your own toe by admitting core are not a community reference but a team where they decide what should be rejected before even allowing the community to decide

how can a community decide of core close the door on an idea before code is wrote... or REKT a team into an altcoin to avoid community decision

now please please please do some independant research. by this i dont mean ask your buddies opinion.
i have already spotted the many signs that you are just repeating the same gibberish as them when you use certain key buzzwords that group uses
(first time i seen you fell down their buzzword script rabbithole is when you started spouting "conservative")
as a fellow brit. you should know better than to think conservative is a positive.. in bitcoin and british politics. conservative buzzword does not mean what you think it does.

[DooMAD]

im the one saying bitcoin can scale... and saying it can scale in many ways (emphasis on thebitcoin network. not other networks pretending to be bitcoin layered)

If there was only one single idea I could successfully communicate to you, it's that I'm well past caring what you're saying.  

We've already established that you're running a client that supports Emergent Consensus.  That option is there for those who do think EC is a good idea and people are free to run that code if they want to, but very few people appear to think that's the correct course of action for BTC, because for the most part, people are not electing to run that code.  If they did, your arguments might have some clout.  You are simply a small, but exceedingly outspoken, minority here.  

oh and not even 40% are using segwit now and not even 40 % are using LN.. should you actually want to do some stats checking.. yea even while pushing alot of people off the network or into non full validating nodes.. the actual utility and desire of segwit and LN is low...

Yes, let's check the stats for SegWit.  As for Lightning, there isn't any kind of threshold it needs to achieve to be useful.  That's the whole point of being able to opt-in.  Some people are using it and that's good enough.  Perhaps more will use it in time as it evolves and becomes more user friendly.  And if they don't, it's still good enough.  It's doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.  Even a small number of LN users is still enough to take some pressure off the BTC blockchain.  But try not to mistake peoples' general enthusiasm for the concept as some sort of notion that literally everyone has to use it.  The option is there, but it is categorically an option.  Not compulsory.

But I bet if usage for LN and SegWit were higher, you'd be claiming that was some sort of goddamn conspiracy too.  

yet luke JR's proposals get to become BIPS.. yet other non core roadmap friendly proposals dont even make it to bip stage...
really shows core have community spirit.. and want to actually be a community REFERENCE.. but oh wait, you stepped over your own toe by admitting core are not a community reference but a team where they decide what should be rejected before even allowing the community to decide

how can a community decide of core close the door on an idea before code is wrote...

Of course the developers decide what goes into their own client.  What planet are you even living on if you think they don't have that right?  It just goes round and round in circles with you, doesn't it?  Every single thought that escapes from your head is deliberately designed to perpetuate the myth that users somehow get to tell developers what they can or can't do.  Developers don't owe you the exact client you personally want to have.  They're under no obligation to implement every dumb idea you come up with.  They aren't your slaves.  If they aren't interested in your ideas enough to pursue them on merit alone, pay them some money and ask nicely if you want them to make something for you.

The community don't directly get to decide what goes into any particular dev team's client.  That would be completely unworkable (mostly because it would be total chaos and isn't even remotely practical).  However, if Core want to remain relevant, it's up to them to make sure that what they're putting out there appeals to enough users.  Users get to decide if they run that client or a different one.  If an idea is deemed worthy by a significant proportion of the community and Core decide not to implement it, they create a gap in the market which anyone can then fill with a new client, just like the one you freely choose to run.  Ergo, you are the living embodiment of the fact that there is a level playing field.  Of the options available, you're running exactly the code you want to run.  But each and every time a competitor has appeared so far, the community are mostly choosing to run Core's client.  That means they broadly agree with what Core are doing.  Obviously you blame that on the REKT campaigns, but there's not much anyone can do to prevent those and it still doesn't change the fact that BTC users generally don't seem to like EC.

(first time i seen you fell down their buzzword script rabbithole is when you started spouting "conservative")
as a fellow brit. you should know better than to think conservative is a positive.. in bitcoin and british politics. conservative buzzword does not mean what you think it does.

I think the tories are loathsome shit-stains and their particular breed of politics is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think we should be reckless when it comes to Bitcoin.  When I say "conservative" I simply mean not being rash, impulsive or imprudent.  I honestly don't know why the tories even call themselves conservatives, because they're incredibly rash and imprudent with their neoclassical economy BS, but that's a discussion for another topic entirely.  

[franky1]

im the one saying bitcoin can scale... and saying it can scale in many ways (emphasis on thebitcoin network. not other networks pretending to be bitcoin layered)

If there was only one single idea I could successfully communicate to you, it's that I'm well past caring what you're saying.  

Yes, let's check the stats for SegWit.    

if you dont care. then why are you for months now repeating yourself every time i point out a flaw in dvs mindset. if you dont care about devs. you would be at a pub, drinking, or watching eastenders or finding some other british drama to entertain your life.

yea check them stats
a transaction is blindly treated as segwit even if 1 input is a segwit address..
yep even if the rest of the inputs are legacy signed. they can be incorrectly counted as a segwit transaction even though their signatures dont sit in the weight area(the whole point of segwit)

(makes them stats even less reliable...)
.... (you will find the real stats are under 25%.. but yea a year later and less than 40%(i was trying to be nice and use biggr numbers in your favour.. but still proving a point that after a year thers no big segwit uptake)
did you even dare read that topic..
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5051985.msg46980487#msg46980487
there is shown admitting that even if legacy has majority inclusion of a tx. its still treated as 100% segwit
so.. next time. if you want to prove me wrong. dont use a stat that actually proves me right. although i do love laughing when you prove me right. i still find it foolish that you have not done th research to have your own independant compelling information for you to make a good rebuttle. as its just wasting your time and mine
please try to do some independent research outside your lil group (year i recognise the regular buddies of yours merit swapping each other and just circle jerking the same mantra)
..

if Core want to remain relevant, it's up to them to make sure that what they're putting out there appeals to enough users.  

this here is the FLAW in YOUR repeated rhetoric
core have proven with the august 2017 event that they dont need community approval.
LUKE JR ADMITTED IT HIMSELF, as did others..
they disregarded 60% of the community with their coded tricks
(and dont you even dare try to poke the bear asking for the names of the tricks.. you tried that many times now.)

bilateral split, consensus bypass, nya agreement uasf, mandatory bypass. call the event whichever one you choose. ..
but you know all about it so no time to play dumb/ignorant. that game of yours is over. you cant play dumb now. you have had a year to learn

[franky1]

I think the tories are loathsome shit-stains and their particular breed of politics is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think we should be reckless when it comes to Bitcoin.  When I say "conservative" I simply mean not being rash, impulsive or imprudent.  I honestly don't know why the tories even call themselves conservatives, because they're incredibly rash and imprudent with their neoclassical economy BS, but that's a discussion for another topic entirely.  

and the mandatory consensus bypass .... you call that conservative approach...
core use "conservative" as their way of saying "nah we wont do that, we will do this".. same as the tories

anyway you meandered this topic enough. and still just ended up with just you spouting insults.
now you admit you dont care. so go to the pub, watch some eastenders. then instead of your endless flood of meandering topics just to cause insult social drama. how about go research REAL STATS

oh. by the way. you may also notice compared to 2016-2017. the number of transactions DECREASED per week.. so although you may think that there are 40%+ using OPTING IN to segwit. there are not.
try reviewing real people / tx count/utxo count,

EG if there were lets say 2500 people buying a banana every week for years. suddenly a Kabana was invented.
now after the event you only see 2000 people buy any type of fruit. but you only see 800 people buy kabana.. even though they also buy banana at same time. does not mean there is a 40% kababa desire and 60% banana desire.
there is actually more than 60% banana desire and you will find that by default some kabanas have been thrown into peoples shopping by default via the fruit supplier
(yea core defaults change addresses to be segwit even if people didnt "opt-in"(your favourite word))
might be worth reading some code now and again, keep yourself upto date on the reality of bitcoin. oh and read about eltoo to keep uptodate about LN. seems your missing some uptodate info about factories

now here is a bit of funny...
do you know that sipa (main segwit guy) uses legacy addresses..
even funnier.
do you know since segwit. the tips/payments sipa gets from people who obviously think that he done a good job so are tipping him.. are not in any majority % at all tipping him in segwit tx format
just goes to show when an inventor does not use his invention and his fans dont tip him using his invention, means that somethings up

but then again. there are many funnies. like the paid dev's chairmen(vc funders) organising a bitcoin event, but you have to buy tickets in only fiat. (comedy gold)