fact check:
harry and meghan decided to move out of the 'monarchy' .. but not the family where his gran  just happens to be employed as the queen. they are still tight as a family

the 'sussexroyal' website was not created after leaving the monarchy. but a year before hand.

the queen had  awhile ago told them what they can and cant do. media is just slow on getting the facts and just tries to make it seem relevant now by pretending its new news

the queen did not sack, did not disown and did not do anything to force them out.. they decided it for themselves.

the whole trademark and website stuff happened in and before december 2019 (way before announcing to leave)
its kinda of funny that its mid february and media is trying to bring up news available 1-2-6 months prior.. seems like just some drama provoking clickbait to me

by the way. they are actually allowed and are actually having a 1 year 'gapyear' to see what life outside the monarchy is like. and at the end of the year in 2020 they will tell the queen if they want to make it fully official. extend the trial. or return to duty.

and yes the queen is happy with the gapyear idea




and lastly.. legally.. the UK monarchy. does not fully forbid the complete use of 'royal' by non royalty entities ..
otherwise WWE 'royal rumble' would be suddenly saying that the rock, HHH, and hulk hogan are monarchs.... (but shh they are not)

here is another funny fact. the word 'royal' is the same as 'queen' 'king' 'prince' they can be used by businesses. yep. royal king queen princes nd princess can all be use by uk businesses.

check out a large selection of UK pubs and bars for reference

last funny..
the website is still active.

the only issues i have is the pronouns some come up with are so non descript that it actually provokes drama by forcing people to ask more about it

for instance get rid of the 'they' 'them' pronoun.
and find ones of true relevance

i know things have become derogatory to use nowadays but.. 'he-she' or 'shemale' were amptly descriptive and useful for born male now female.. and the opposite

even things like female with female genitals that wants to identify as male=tomboy

as for the people that pretend they dont want to be defined . yet go out of their way to cause drama by dressing a certain way which would indicate their desired identity. to then argue and fight and moan if someone brings it up or  doesnt use their prefered pronouns of 'them' 'they' 'strawberry' 'helicopter'

it actually becomes derogatory to say. 'them' in many cases.
infact someone went up to a person of coloured skin who was trans. and when using the term 'them' the coloured person created drama about how the other person was creating racial drama and started to go on a rant about how the coloured person was being persecuted and treated like their slave ancestors and not being defined as a human.

it all becomes rediculous drama provoking crap when people are trying to pretend to be something they are not.
im all for people wanting to be unique and open to identify themselves as how they feel. but dont just be a drone lemming following some social style craze of the 'them' 'they' pronoun. it dont make anyone special if you start conversations with 'i  identify as the pronouns...' especially if the pronouns are not unique or descriptive
(by this i mean the trend followers. not the actual transcommunity)


im male. born male, will always be male and i like women. thus i say me.i.he.him (the traditional pronouns)
but just to rebuttal those trend folower drones who just want some attention seeking of a latest craze without understanding whats really going on biologically, psychologically... i tell them i identify as a helicopter, chopper and swirly whirly bird... and just see them try getting those pronouns into conversations without messing up
just to prove a point

pretty much what i said

as i was saying the whole point of actually trying to do a bank run on redistributing bank notes is not only a false safeguard. but its redundant on many levels.

and i dont see people qeeuing outside banks. so it looks like a false story too

couple funny things.
if someone came to a bank with 20 notes. they wont be out the door in 10 minutes..

secondly the bank teller/clerk. grabbing and counting the old notes. then grabs holds new bank notes.. (contact transfer) makes the process a little redundant

just imagine all the customers grabbing hold the door handle or signing a payment slip with the same pen everyone uses

thirdly if UV was effective. then why is there no big business of facemasks with cheap UV LED shining at peoples faces
if UV was so quick why dont doctors surgeries have UV lamps at entrances and exits to decontaminate people as they walk in and out..
.. because its not that effective
i see soap dispensers on hospital walls. not UV hand dryers


but the other things like. in 1 and a half months 1500 deaths due to corona. yet 30,000 due to road traffic accidents(20x)
oh and if everything is on lockdown/quarantine how come there are still airflights and they are regular too.. about a flight every 30 minutes from wuhan..

what you dont get told is 'retirement villages' are getting extra care as are children care homes. but average joe isnt getting any special treatment

elwar. it might have taken you 5 years to come to your senses of things i knew back then. but it seems your finally realising you were over promising and under delivering.

as for the 'landstead'
i hope you have not just sold the land owner an idea. have you even thought about things like if the pods are pre-fabbed in a factory. how the cranes and trucks are going to get between the tree's to position it all.
i cant see a group of men 'heave hoing' a 1.6m diameter and 20-40metre tall metal pole on their shoulders weaving in between tree's and over rocks and roots..

after all to be 'all around parrots, monkeys and sloths' indicate that its more of a forest land and not just some garden/woodland area'

again. electric and sanitation (fresh water/sewage) seem to be area's you are yet again not thinking about.
people carrying in freshwater and carrying out waste..

obviously if the landpod is going to be powered (presuming solar) the pod would nee to be above a tree canopy.
seems you just keep skipping over the basics

and all that it would be used for is just 'watch towers' for wild life fans to use for half a day tour

you really have no clue how law works.

---

again you really dont understand it at all..
just because some idol you chose to fanboy over mentioned the word queens bench you think you found the secret sauce. but you dont understand the whole process and what actually goes on. you just think if you mention a buzzword you can pretend to know what it means just by saying the word.

try to put an effort into learning. because its becoming truly obvious that you are clueless

i have actually played around with LN not to find the best usecase.
not to use it by the limits of how its intended to be used. but by actually trying to find the flaws and holes.

you know the worse use cases. but for me done it in scenarios where the other parties involved in my tests knew what i was attempting so that they did not actually lose anything and i made them whole in cases where any loses were made to them.
(few tests done in regtest mode too)

but imagine someone without morals that just wants greed. who can abuse it and make people lose out and just not care
about the others

try to think about the holes and exploits of LN
there are there many other exploits too

for one because users do not blokchain review other users balance multiple hops away.
as the whole point is that people can keep things a secret within their channel(supposedly on best use practices, but that can be exploited)

you can also claim a channel balance using funds in one channel.. and in a totally different channel with a totally different partner. claim the funds are in those too.
you know lock 1 amount of 0.1btc.. but than have 3 separate channels on 3 nodes that say that those funds are in those channels too.
you can even open a channel with funds that were locked or even having no onchain lock. and confirmed a year ago. as if it was fresh channel
you can check if its even possible by seeing channels that are only open for 30-60 days. but using blockchain data from a year ago

you would be quite surprised what is possible

heck you can even use it in 'best case' scenario. and HYIP scam people
once you start to dip your toe into the water of seeing what can be exploited. you will start to not want to associate or pretend that LN is as good or as secure as bitcoin

atleast try to think about user security and protection and not just think about corporate brand image protection

heck you might even want to do some research on things like 'payment of death' while our at it

you might want to actually both go look at what is actually possible on LN. and not be trying to brand protect corporations.
seems your minds are too orientated towards corp PR spin and not users risk using LN

bitrefill may have changed their tact
but LN as a system (if you stop corporate suck up) does alot more things that can STILL put users at risk
try.. just once .. yep im repeating it because seems many have not dont it.. just try to act like you are a user and you are concerned about the risks.. drop all the ego of protecting brands. and think from the prospective of user risk user experience and hacker exploitability..

maybe then your eyes might be widened enough to see whats really going on.

if all you want to do is just say 'wrong coz wrong' and carry on promoting a brand.. dont even bother replying.. try using the time you would spend replying to actually think about the risks and exploitability.

you are in denial at the moment and seem to only believe what has been spoonfed to you by corporations.. so try to actually be open to try to learn something by trying it.. not from the corporate best practice usage method. but by trying the 'poke it till it breaks' method to actually find the limitations the risks and the exploits.

people like doomad are the type that would happily positive PR spin a custodial bitcoin service who has cleartext access to private keys of a user and say that its secure and no one but the user can touch it. i seen many people like domad over the years care more abut wanting to be a spokesman/affiliate of businesses.
so i see no difference when they advertise other networks pretending other networks are as secure and trusted as the bitcoin blockchain.

again dont even bother with the crappy PR spin that everything is perfect and safe and LN is the same as bitcoin because it aint. instead realise that there are issues and problems and there are some devs behind LN that actually admit there are issues and there are actual risks and exploits.
and yes. devs themselves have actually lost funds using LN
and yes some scammers are actually playing around ding HYIPs on LN
and yes some scammers have channels with unbacked balance
all this is possible. and i do truly hope from atleast a moral prospective that some companies hve changed to not use the exploits. but this does not mean that LN is not at risk of being exploited

try to learn about factories and how channels can be opened and closed without needing blockchain utility inbetween. think critically as if your a bug finder at how these things can be used negatively.

again.. because it must take several times for things to actually get through.
drop the corporate PR and try to think/care/desire to want to know what users should be aware of about risks/exploits and issues. dont just try positive spinning

badecker. have you already forgot the drama...

elwar pretended he was heading up a project and asking for money from loads of people..
he got into trouble and then pretended he was just a guest of someone elses project that had nothing to do with setting up a micronation and that was not his or anyones intent.

did you truly forget all that stuff
come on for someone so obsessed with knowing the bible you must has some kind of recall..

even funier thing even after the elwar drama. the group elwar associated withstill didnt learn the lessons of elwars drama and continued money grabbing and saying to build plots just 20 miles off shore.
....

i for years have been telling elwar the flaws of his project.
1. sanitation (waste disposal and environmental impact)
2. resource/food sustainability vs importing
3. power generation. living space

the 'pod' that was involved in elwars drama was not even fit for sustainable living. even elwar admits that he didnt stay on it 24/4

i think you really need to look for a different guy to be the head guy for truly viable seasteading. elwar is not it.
and for the whole micronation citizenship wishes and promises and hopes.. forget it. elwar has absolutely no clue

here is the funny. elwar is just looking for new projects for the money grab and that has been pointed out over many years.
all he wants is free vacations where he gets others to pay for them under the guise that they are funding elwar to project manage a future home for the investor.. but elwar treats it like donations with no refund policy.

as for the latest project. its not a micronation of a city. its a boat facility making boats the size of under 10metres in any direction.(the ocean builders link you provided hinted at this by their 15-30 dimensions of the facility doing 3 builds at a time)

if you actually do research you will see elwar and his lil gang are not making micronation cities. they are making boats
but still have not solved all the self sustainability and environmental risks associated.

oh and if you think this project is new and revolutionary.. you need to use google more
google image search: floating houses
then realise that elwar and his friends are not even making that. they are making adapted boats

his claim has not merit.

mainly craig has shown no chain of custody of the software from satoshi's 2009 source forge version to craigs 2017+ BSV

also the real satoshi was happy to pass the batton to gavin who set up the github inventory which that inventory, though passing hands over the years does have a chain of custody over what has been deemed the main one.

craig did not become the current custodian of the github repo that has been around since the satoshi-gavin transition in 2010

in short craig himself is not using a satoshi client. nor is he using a gavin client.
craig is the one using the 'photocopy' and the real bitcoin repo. is still in the custodian and janitorial hands of core

i do not like the current janitors of the main btc client. for many reasons. but legally craig is in the wrong.

also as for the database.
craig did not write the database. infact in 2013 the database tools changed (the 0.5mb hiccup) so core right now are not using the same database ordering system as the real satoshi did in 2009-2010.
but because there is a very public proof of chain of custody from satoshi to gavin then to core. core have it not craig


as for the data in the database. that is not copywritable as its public. so craig cant even claim he owns the data.

the very fact that craig is not even using the 2009 satoshi varient works against craig in many many many ways
and if craig just wants to pretend for instance that he owns the data because he can sign messages of certain transactions..
wel great id like to see some actual fresh signed messages for once to show how many bytes of data he has control over..
but funny thing is over the amount of active usage of bitcoin i hve had over the last 8 years. i could prove i have done more transactions than him and my control over a certain amount of bytes of the blockchain far far far far exceeds his

we are talking about LN.. stop trying to compare LN to bitcoin by using bitcoin as an example..
LN is not bitcoin
LN is just that.. its own network (the secret is in the N (network))

the whole purpose of LN is to have its own set of rules that differ to bitcoins rules

its the whole point...
even thor turbo admits to this by saying their unbacked channels are customary and usually those accepting unbacked balance are using their software varient..

i still cant beleive you actually try to dismiss LN issues by bringing a bitcoin example into the scenario.
LN is not bitcoin. so what cant be done by bitcoin CAN be done by LN. so just stop trying to fool people thinking LN does the same as bitcoin

read their dang quote in that topic which you foolishly thought was in your favour.
its you that does not understand it..

you foolishly wrote it as if to say if people have custom rules they have to be in full knowledge and understanding of the terms and conditions of that custom ruleset... WHICH IS WRONG. most people dont know what thy are getting into and there is not big list of terms and conditions listing everything.

then you now go on some obsurb notion that if there were these custom rules that no one else would be on the network..
loads use it..

you are such a fool
you do realise that LN has no community wide transaction validity review system. no blockchain. reqiring full network coopertion

heck i could set up a route of
a<->b<->c<->d
and say if i was C.. i could be in a thor turbo channel with D and also another wallet ruleset with b

do you know why..
because the funds of B do not go to D
even if a or b wanted to pay D.. the funds do not exit their channels.
instead my node see's that i am 'presumed promised' funds in the b-c channel.. i then separately then 'presume promise' funds to d in the c-d channel.
again B does not need to communicate to D
B goes through C and C decides to use C-D funds or not

please just wake up and realise that people can tinker around and make custom rules and it does not need a full network effect. it just is channel partner related.

.. i hope you grasp the small scale co-partner side of it one day.. then maybe you can grasp the effect it can have on a wider scale.
 especially hope you one day grasp that average joe doesnt actually go to coding school or legal school to learn all the terms and conditions and code rules .. they just simply open a wallet and think they are funded..
you know much like how millions of citizens thought for decades that bank notes were still backed by gold.

i truly doubt you ever use it by the lack of true understanding beyond promotional material spoon feeds.
i doubt you even know of all the risks of loses, scams and other threats possible in LN. because all you seem to know is the positive spin PR stuff

i used to think that your were not that technical and more of a marketing guy.. but now i think your even failing the basics of marketing.. you know the part about know your product.

do i really need to ask you to do your research.. or will you just for once try it without having to be told

heck the whole point of these litemobile wallets to make walking into retailers to make fast transactions is to not need to have a desktop handy to check/view/use the blockchain. so high percentage of people wont check even if they knew how to. they just blindly 'trust' ln because they been promised every channel is backed and everything is secure ..
atleast wise up that its not the case

you do realise that with most average joe that dont read raw transaction data. even things like schnorr can become an abusive tool for LN

just imagine it. someone makes a multisig of 2-3 but keeps 2 and the other person has the 1. the other person thinks its just a 2-2 because nothing in schnorr reveals who or how many parties are involved.

not the person with the 2 can singularly sign funds without the other party. and the other party cant do anything about it.

true gang stalking is done where there is a viable positive result for the organisation doing it. otherwise why waste funds organising it and planning such things.

for instance organising prolife crowds to hang around abortion clinics.
basically it can happen to people of power/influence. or organisations that another organisation does not want around anymore

but to average joe of no big relevance who feels they are victim to it because they feel that some group has recognised that persons sensitivity to negative stimuli...
in all cases. its the persons sensitivity to negative stimuli.. also known as dumbass paranoia who thinks the world is out to get them when the reality is that they are not even worth getting at.

if people are calling yo a nutcase. its not because they are part of any organisation. its because the stuff your saying is stupid.
truly ask yourself what is the massive social/financial gain a company can get out of you personally.

then maybe the best cure is to stop taking drugs for a few months.. let the paranoia surpass. and then reassess your life and the lives of those around you

the uk will continue trading

asia is not an eu state butasia trades with the eu
usa is not an eu state but usa trades with the eu
africa is not an eu state but africa trades with the eu

stop throwing project fear or project racism around.. instead do some research

im all for free choice.

but to say things like
if you dont like bitcoin 'f**k off' to another network
if you want a better experience try an altcoin
altcoins are great because they take users away, this is good for bitcoin

is stupid excuses that i would hear people in Myspace say
if you dont like myspace sign up to facebook
if you want a better expereince sign up to facebook
facebook is great because it takes users away from myspace. this is good for myspace

i hope you see the stupidity of that mindset
rather than trying to get bitcoin to be really practical as a payment system ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK. seems too many are  saying its ok to keep bitcoin limited and to promote altcoins and other services instead.. (facepalm)

i still wait for the 600k tx day potential to be surpassed.. something  calculated in 2010. and 4 years ago now promise to offer so much more tx capacity
i still wait for cheaper transactions. yet all i see is the code which show devs have X4 legacy and not / 4 any tx format.
transactions are not sub pennies/cents.

people think paying $0.50 is acceptable yet 4 years ago devs said they wanted to add new features that would scale bitcoin and make transactions cheaper(than the max of 0.20 back then).

all i see is hard drives filling up by 1.7x but not getting 1.7x transaction amounts compared to 2017

the reason people still talk about it 4 years on is because real statists and hard drive data show the capacity 'scaling' has not been fixed, nor has the transaction fee discount actually result in sub penny tx's. nor have we seen many other promises met.. so yea people will still talk about it

segwit came into effect in summer 2017

the highest fee ever seen came after segwit.. (december 2017)
why
because segwit forced many transaction types to cost 4x usual amounts.
so if someone sending a legacy transaction paid $20 in december 2017.. if the exact same circumstances and demand was to occur in 2016. they would have only paid $5

also the reason for the $20 was due to a exchange price of $20k(winter) compared to $5k(summer)
so again same situation as just described. but taking the exchange price into account when calculating sats per bytes.
if there was same demand.. but in 2016 and without the exchange price.. the most you would have paid was $1.25

yep. the peak price of fee's should have been $1.25. but DUE TO SEGWIT's 4x of fee's and the whole price  rise drama on exchange caused the TEMPORARY peak of a $20 fee.

this is not due to legacy transactions being bad. this aint to do with bitcoin being broke . nothing to do with segwit making things cheaper. but purely due to hype being glorified as how a temporal event being wrote out as a 'average' price.. (facepalm) to then pretend things got better..

no.. after segwit .. things got worse.. then it recovered
too many stupid people think the $20 fee and the $20k exchange rate are normal long term averages to base things off of.. sorry they were not. they were stupidly short term flukes and should not be used to base average expectations off of to then compare.

wise up people. stop jumping on the segwit hype train.

cant beleive people saying todays fee's of $0.50 is ok..
in 2015 people were creating hell when feels were over $0.20
yet strangely.. saying fees of $0.50 are now deemed as cheap

where did the 2015 promise of cheaper sub cent fee's disapear to.
come on 2009-2015 people wanted to pay under $0.01
devs promoted their 'fixes' to achieve that..
yet here we are 2020. being told $0.50 is acceptable.

screw it. lets take a $10k car. from 2015.. price it temporarilly at $200k for just a couple months.. and then start advertising that the car is at a great deal and worthy paying $50k for it..

or wise up and ask why the heck isnt it $5k or atleast the same $10k
soo many people are duped into the stupid advertising ploy without realising the numbers dont actually meet expectations when they really think about it

wise up people

every year there is significant inflation world wide.

the reason people dont notice it is because its world wide. so the exchange rate between the currencies still equal the same amount..

what you find has changed is how much bread or milk you can buy for that amount

it wont matter if people use bitcoin or fiat. it would all equal the same.
less bread and milk no matter what currency is used

might wanna double check your math.
if you had a block of the transaction you quote as 441wu
it will be only 5208..... why.. because even in segwit the 192 bytes that are not witness still limited to the 1mb base
there is no way to get 9000tx ...

maybe you need to retrain your 'simple maths' because it doesnt appear you recognise the simple stuff so just avoid including it

also the calculation that satoshi and others done YEARS ago was a 1in 2 out.. which got the 4200 (7tx/s)
you know.. its more likely people dont wanna spend all their funds so more likely have a 'change' address attached to. hense why it was used as a primary use representer.

now i dare you to try a segwit 1in 2out to be a more a fair comparison.. because your math is more about not knowing the 1mb base is still involved in segwit.. and instead you try to use thin(1n 1out) transactions which make it look like its due to segwit. when reality shows its due to thin transactions rather than the representer transaction of 1in 2out.
shame on you.

heck.. i can do a thin in 1out non segwit(legacy). and guess what... same 5208 tx as segwit.. but hard drive size taken up is actually 1mb
your first example of a similar 1in 1out segwit would take up 2.29mb
kinda funny you dont actually see that.

after all your dribble about bandwidth and hard drive capacity worries.. your not actually realising that
a non segwit block of 1in 1out would be hard drive 1mb 5208 tx
a segwit block if 1in 1out would be hard drive 2.29mb 5208 tx

so dont go using the stupid math hiding trick. if you actually cared about hard drive and bandwidth like you pretend you do. you would be counting the actual bytes involved and not playin g the segwit tricks of hiding information and forgetting which rule apply.

but i do laugh you think that segwit can achieve a 1.29million tx a day scaling...
ill wait and see that happen.. and wait..
and wait..
and wait...
...... or probably faster you realise your math mistakes and your inability to recognise whats really happening at code and hard drive level to realise where your mistakes have been made

.. just remember.. in non-segwit(legacy) the weight is not a real number. its s stupid multiplication done to make transactions more expensive. legacy WU is not the actual bytes of tx. nor the hard drive space it takes up nor the bandwidth usage.

have a nice day though

the inner workings of 'financial aid' is not that big a hit on the treasury. so yea governments and colleges dont care. due to the way that banks can offer loans and how treasury bonds work to the create the loan allowances. its not a big treasury bite.

however i feel many colleges in many countries have the same problem of doing courses for stupid subjects that dont apply to real work place requirements.

there are other things like offering courses that are only 2-3 days a week or half days 4-5 days a week. but then spread it over 2 years to ensure colleges get 2 years of value out of a course that should only take 1 year full time.

this kind of spreading things apart is so that a full time tutor/lecturer gets paid, if you do the math double for their time. which some people think that lecturers wages have not increased. but in actual fact by making one half of the day/week year one. and then other half year 2.. then they are teaching twice the students and getting twice the income for the same time

so actually making students do full time 9am-5pm 5 days a week so they can get qualified faster helps the students, both be work ready and less debt

the real fix is not to force colleges into not accepting 25% of financial aid. because that just forces impoverished kids to not afford to live/feed themselves because the other 25% they have to pay to complete the tuition fee has to come from somewhere.
25% reduction in financial aid wont reduce fee's it will just prioritise students that can take out loans or self finance

instead its better to concentrate on offering topics that directly link to employment prospects and then get the potential employers to foot the bill.

coming back to the subject of useful subjects to teach. offering more work experience/apprenticeships would be more beneficial than just classroom literature. because by the time the literature it researched. then wrote out and then formed into a sylibus the information is out dated. take bitcoin. doing a course in blockchains would take a year to develop a course and another few months to get the lecturers set up ready to teach it. and by the time the students start learning it and ready for final exams.. the information is out dated.

by this i mean actually give students in-work experience plus a little bit of income associated with it. so they can actually have something more useful and relevant on their resume's and they can keep up with the latest information because they are actually using the up to date stuff that real workplaces are using at the time.

for instance about the income. student athletes have sports companies 'sponsor'/offer scholarships to colleges but the students do alot of on-work experience but without pay, without healthcare and without other employment benefits.

college should be set up to get people into work. and not just a but-on-seat method for the college to make profit by offering stupid courses and not able to promise employment at the end of it

you think average joe actually checks the raw tx .. no. they just see a channel balance and think that they have balance. you are fooling yourself if you think people check things.. especially knowing you yourself dont check things critically.
many people are fooled by 'trust' .. the real bitcoin network is so strong it doesnt need people to trust.. yet LN is a different story. but by playing the bitcoin buzzword too many people end up trusting LN because of the buzzword games..
and yes that has and can lead to many people just accepting balance without checking.
you are an idiot to think that the user should be blamed for opening such a channel. its bitrefill that should make it absolutely clear that people are accepting unbacked balance.
again shame on you for making it out the user is in the wrong for opening the channel

most users/consumers using these custom rule lite wallets. think its the same rules. think all LN millisats are backed. they are not coders or know how to check things. they just like many consumers blindly trust the PR thats been spouted out. again they are not coders. so yes they are unware of what they are agreeing to. but agree anyway because they are given millisats at a discount. they dont see they are given unbacked millisats

these wallets do not have a button of terms and conditions that in bold tell people that the balance is not pegged. it doesnt tell them the critical stuff.. its just a open channel to get milliats. and the person says yes they want them millisats.. without any consideration if those millisats are backed pegged to a real bitcoin confirmed tx lock of funds.

you are an absolute fool.
but its nice to know you admit now that you feel its ok to have unbacked balance in LN.. but shame your blaming the user for having unbacked balance by saying they agreed to it. you really dont care about users security or having a payment sstem thats as strong as what bitcoin is. total shame on you.

whats next blame users for being suckered into the HYIP schemes that are starting up in LN. do you have any moral/ethics to actually care about users experience and user risk. or are you just mr exagerated positive PR guy wanting to fame up LN under the FALSE pretense that its thought to be linked to bitcoin because people throw the buzzword around alot.

and yea funny how you pretend it is bitcoin but admit by the quotes reference that it doesnt actually need bitcoin to work. that it a separate system . and this separate system doesnt even have to stick to any rule related to bitcoin.
such a shame it must be to live your life of sucking up to certain devs and certain companies whos only interest is personal gain.

as for your final point..
LN cant create new btc.. because LN is not BTC...
its like you are trying to say that i feel that banks are creating more gold when they make bank notes.. no a bank note is not gold. fractional reserve is where there are mrore bank notes that people BELIEVE to be pegged to gold. but there aint that much gold involved.
again. its not about creating more gold or more bitcoin. its about making more bank notes / millisats than there is gold/btc to back them... that is fractional reserve.

i wont tell you to do your research because after a few years its obvious you dont.. so ill just say grow some morals and ethics

if you go check that topic thread and read the post from above mine in that topic .. you now the one made by bitrefill.. you know the one you merited... you would read

'Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want. If you use rules that are different than other LN wallets or the rest of the network, you will be limited to a subnetwork of people using the same rules. Turbo channel opening requires a custom channel, '

they are playing by their own rules to have the ability to open channels with millisat balance thats not pegged to a confirmed and locked bitcoin blockchain tx'

like i said do your research.. and if you really want to know the wallet i was talking about.. a hint.. its in the quote i just pasted
have a nice day though.
shame your more interested in trying to be exagerated positive PR guy rather than actually thinking critically about things.
but i dont think you will ever change

pretty funny you merited something without understanding it.