the foolish mindset is that the propaganda machine loves to advertise this:
btc = 1mb legacy small blocks forever
alt= gigabyte blocks

the reasonable and common sense is where things should go back to what btc was 2009-2015 (incremental growth)
2009 0.25
2013 0.5
2014 0.75
2015 1mb
future <incremental growth>

the only reason btc halted at 1mb legacy is to force a utility limitation of a legacy 2in-2out tx of only allowing under 3000tx a block. while allowing slightly more LN gateway/ramp(segwit) tx's
yet even this is a limited amount of how many LN open/close sessions can occur.
all in an attempt to deburden bitcoin of actual bitcoin utility and make people move to other networks of alts/pegged tokens

for what its worth you recently changed ur prices, but vn at your now higher prices its not like a person pays500ksat and get 500ksat channel, they get 1mill sat channel
for what its worth, by opening a channel before even having a blockchain locked and confirmed tx peg is a risk
for what its worth, for LN to even allow channels to open without a pegged tx is a risk (opening a msat balance but collateral being coinbase.com data) as this shows its possible in code/technically to open channels without needing a blockchain tether AKA fractional reserving

all of craigs court drama is just waste of time publicity stunt civil court stuff. trying to gain fame to hope the fame is the "proof"
all it amounts to is paying a £50 court application and using a agreed second party(ira K) to pretend to be the opposition to his claim. that way he controls the narrative and direction.

hense why the request was for craigs personal holdings and not the supposed trust holdings
and then have the results of the personal holdings redacted/sealed.. meaning a waste of request

because what private companies and aussie government care about and what if the klieman drama was real, would be about the trust not the personal holdings. thus craig showing just personal stuff is meaningless and done just as stupid drama

this is non-news. and just dramatic distractions.

1. the klieman/wright case is just a facade. its done just to keep alive a fake veil of speculation that coins from 2011 are somehow involved in craig wrights businesses. ira klieman and craig are actually working together to use the courts as their drama stage. thus keeping other courts government proceedings at a distance.

2. this non news event is requesting craigs personal holdings at 2013.... which has nothing to do with the supposed 'satoshi stash' of 2011 which supposedly is in trust (not craigs possession)
this means similar to saying a court is requesting the queen to show her personal belongings of 2019, which would be just a couple old dresses and pair of underwear. but not requesting the contents of 'her' trusts (HMRC) (crown estate)

thus a pointless exercise just done to cause delays in the hope that craig can pass by the statute of limitations period to avoid the aussie government going after him for his scam

blockchains can solve many things. but first to find a solution you need the "why"

yes blockchains are blocks of data, but WHY need 10,000+ random people to store 3D print files?
yes blockchains are blocks of data, but WHY need to think of a blockchain as just a payment token method when theres already thousands of chains that are payment tokens

a solution could simply be that 20 torrent servers or file hosts store the files. and a blockchain just stores a description of the file and a filehash
that way the blockchain is used as proof of authenticity. to even get on the blockchain users have to verify a file has no viruses and the file is as described to pass the test to get confirmed.
then the 10,000+ random users are only storing
"1000th scale design Eiffel tower: filehash:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
instead of mb's of data of the file itself.
so that when searching the internet or getting emailed/sent a file/torrented. the file can be instantly verified to be what it suppose to be and be a clean copy

there is no need to use blockchains as the actual datastore of files, especially if blockchain users dont need to store the whole file for the rest of their life. blockchains could just be the modern day replacement of the 'patent office'

.. that is not how bitcoin and financial instituations works you mean.

blockchains DO NOT have to be limited to 'transaction history'

a blockchain could easily hold a publickey and a social scurity number
1P0oy487Addr355 : SS xxxxxxxx
then when signing into any service, you dont need stord 'passwords' on institutions. you simply need to sign a message using ur key

EG imagine your with bank of america, and you have your bank account linked to ur social security number
bank of america log-in screen
"please paste signed message of: B0A ssxxxxxxxx May42019 rand:6852455"

now by pasting in a signed message. you have not revealed the private key (your control) but you have proved your identity to log into your account

17mill or 10mill or 5mill coins regularly moving through the network based on UTXO set stats has nothing to do with the supply/limited supply/demand of coins on the markets that give coins the price.

firstly most exchanges daily volume is only a few hundred thousands. which is usually a false stat in itself as many times its the same coins day traded, arbitraged, rinsed and repeated multiple times, so the actual coin numbers involved in market prices can be just a few thousand coins a day.

secondly the price of an order at any minute is not judged on the thousands/millions of coins of a market. but the number of coins of just a few orderlines near each other, which is normally only a few coins

i got to laugh
much like core fans shouting about 4mb weight, yet the 'scaling capacity' does not = x4 tx throughput
which is my point. spending too much time re inventing a wheel to pretend its a better wheel rather than using the well balanced wheels of simplicity and scaling more efficiently

with LN
Neutrino is a compressed blockchain of all tx's... making a 1.4mb block appear as 20kb (70th of the size)
yet requires full nodes to go through a process of re-orging data, compressing it. and sending it.
yet the receiving LN node doesnt need to know about every spent/old tx of history.

what would be more practical, task saving, data size saving and less demanding on full nodes. is to use the UTXO set
not only is the current UTXO set less data than what neutrino compressed data would be.
but the information of UTXO is already readily existant in fullnodes(doesnt need new code/new database/new re-org protocol/new encryption)
the data contained in a UTXO set is more directly what LN wallets need to view(locked funds aka UNSPENTs)

so why create a new protocol/dataset for full nodes to have to process and manage, when they already have a dataset that provides the more direct data LN would need.
seems too many want to re-invent the wheel and try turning a bike into a trike and then a car then a truck(more wheels) instead of just using the well balanced wheels of a simple bike more efficiently

no bitcoins are ever 'lost' 'deleted' every coin still exists and is trackable on bitcoins ledger

however there are reasons where some UTXO's (unspent balances) are not moved, used, circulated between users regularly.

all bitcoin can be tracked. there is nothing secret or special. so tracking bitcoins is not a question.
the question should be judged as which bitcoins should be deemed as unusable currently, meaning what defines 'lost'

many come up with different lists such as:
UTXO's linked to public keys which have an obvious sign that the key does not have a private key someone knows of
UTXO's with dust amounts so small,, to move/spend them would cost more than the value of the UTXO
UTXO's coin-age is more than 6 year old

however even these cases are not 100% proof of those coins being 'lost'. thus when tracking the bitcoins that meet the criteria list of what most would deem as 'lost' should not be treated as a guaranteed lost value, but more of a idea/suggestive stat/estimate.

after all some UTXO's are of only 1sat. meaning people dont bother including them in spends. but in a few years if 1 sat is worth more than a chewing gum. people might want to spend it. thus bringing it back into regular use

the "payment channels" doomad refers to are ~3 years out of date


he refers to an old concept that had flaws where an early version of lightning was described with concepts that used segwit (before segwit was even activated),

which after testing had flaws and functional problems.
(these were the olden days of 'revoke codes and penalties and such)
(these were the olden days before msats)

this is why latest lightning 'payment channels' dont use the actual CLTV as the active iou(payments), but are now using HTLC as the active IOU payment channels and just use CLTV as the setup/close session ramps in and out.
even these setup/close sesion ramps in and out of LN are being phased out with new concepts of factories. where by individual users never hold a CLTV. instead a factory(main node) manages a CLTV (from a blockchain funded collateral) to then pass out a HTLC to users(lite wallets). or simply hands out  HTLC to users if collateral comes from other sources like coinbase balance

throwing out the word "gaslighting, misinformation, fud" as your repetative response. does not actually prove a damn thing apart from show you have not done any research

again
learn the difference between a cltv and htlc
learn about msats
learn about factories

JUST LEARN!!!
dont reply until you have learned
dont reply saying personal comment as a response to delay why you have not learned. just go and learn this stuff
dont reply trying to twist the conversation into a different meander. just go learn this stuff

and if you are going to learn by chatting to a echo chamber of friends. ask them for CODE, data proof. and if they can only reply saying "gaslighting, jiberish, technobable" then they are not explaining the tech they are avoiding explanation and just trying to avoid teaching. so go else where and learn independently

do not reply to me.
go learn about LN and then make a full descriptive reply explaining msats, HTLC factories.
only counter the details of msats, htlc's, factories when you have learned about them.
again dont reply to me about the why's and if's and the whos's of 'franky1' just talk about LN and msats, factories, HTLCs

have a good month

if you reply to this topic in the next 2 days then you have not given self adequate research time.
if you reply just to comment about my comment you have just been ignorant to the point.
if you want to discuss LN LEARN LN

going with YOUR premiss that Msats are simple a measure of real bitcoins.

when people pay for a channel using fiat/altcoin/coinbase balance/unconfirm(unlocked)btc. a service using the eltoo/factory concept creates a channel(HTLC) that contains msats

this means say someone paid using $50 coinbase FIAT balance. they can have opened a channel by a service where the user agree's to accept 1000000000msats(~$50) which they are happy to agree as the value is ~$50. yet although Msats are supposed to be
100000000000msat:1btc.. even though the fact that no btc was locked on btc blockchain, this means there is more pegged btc balance(msats) than actual locked BTC

the 'hope' / aim of fractional reserve services are to not let those handling these extra amounts from doing a bank run and claiming the real asset they are pegged/tethered/represent as that would cause big issues as there is not enough vaulted up asset to cover it all.
this is why you CANNOT broadcast a HTLC of Msats

this is why its important to not conceive Msats as real btc. but as a pegged token
this is why its important to not conceive a HTLC as the same thing as a bitcoin CLTV
this is why understanding the 'factory' concept is totally different from the broadcast concept.
this is why its important to understand there is no big community agreement/consensus. and any 2 parties can privately do as they like agreeing to a balance and then publishing available msats to the route system of litenodes that cant/wont check a blockchain for validity

windfury
learn the difference between a CLTV contract (the lock/vault) and HTLC(the iou/pegged denomination). they are 2 different types of contracts/agreements.
as for saying my info is out dated. sorry but playing with only CLTV was the old crap. now they use HTLC for the payments which is where new things like factories and ELtoo come into play, as well as turbo funding and no collateral funding channels to allow instant use without confirms and such.

please its of benefit to you to really try to learn LN
as for saying there is no token issued. again check out msats

LN is up. but technically and analogically, its hopping

doomad bitcoin/blockchains as used 2009-2013 were consensus based. but then came all the REKT campaigns consensus bypass crap. which is what i highlight.

also you as a flip flopper like to twist things.
YOU say consensus has to be everyone agreeing(then say no one has to agree due to 'no permision'). in actual fact consensus has to be majority agreement to such an appropriate level that the opposition does not cause controversy.

consensus is made from the word to consent. so yes indeed it is a vote of community.
however you prefer to cause controversy by suggesting getting rid of opposition before consensus can even be reached, just to fake majority.

consensus is not about faking a vote to activate a feature. consensus is about finding a feature that the community can as a majority rally around without controversy, without mandatory splits. where by the network progresses via positive code and features that the community want.

again you prefer to split the community and tell people to F**k off the network if they dont like core.
that is not consensus.
saying that core should just be totalitarian and do as they please and force thir feature in because they dont need permission and there should be no vote/consensus.. is your failing

YOU have been very pro core (not bitcoin)
YOU have been very pro deburdening the network(disconnecting non core nodes, fee wars, opposition forks, pro LN)

YOU show lack of understanding of bitcoin, lack of care for the bitcoin network. you just seem to want to play the PR game of do as core say and not as a wider bitcoin community would like.
and dont pretend that everyone is core loyalist and there is only one opposer left. because you are just making yourself look foolish

how about you stop trying to be a core ass kisser and start being a bitcoiner.

typical mindset. you say 'find people that agree', which is your subtle a foolish mindset flip flop thinking that no one disagree's with cores roadmap. sorry but this very forum shows hundreds of people disliking the fee wars, transaction throughput limit and that cores roadmap is trying to deburden bitcoin while falsely advertising it as 'scaling bitcoin'.

your mindset is also foolishly thinking that if people dont want to deburden bitcoin, those people should leave the network and make another network.
it seems all you think as a solution for the bitcoin network is for people to stop using the bitcoin network.. (facepalm)
as for saying those that have opposed cores roadmap have forked off.. im sorry to inform you that core forked some opposition off the network by controversial splits. but them people do run a core node even if they dont like it.
just because cores software is the only on that satisfies all the requiremnts of bing a full validation/full archival criteria, does not mean those using it are core loyalists. it just means they dont want the drama of REKT campaigns and mor mandatory splits, so just give in

your belief that running a core node means adoration and loyalty is your flaw. and may you wake up and realise your foolishness one day.

blockchains and bitcoins are about progress through unity and agreement.(consensus).

if you think that all disagreements should result in totalitarian control and apartheid law. then please do yourself a favour and learn the invention satoshi made. learn the meaning definition of consensus, then learn about the byzantine generals theory and how that was solved. hint. a method of mutual agreement, not division and factions

if you dont understand that Msats are pegged tokens
if you dont understand that HTLC's are just agreeing who owes who wht but a HTCL is not and will never 'settle'

then you have not learned anything about LN

as for your over meanders about bigblocks and altcoins.. my stand is about scaling BITCOIN. not deburdening BITCOIN and scaling alternative networks

here you go again spewing out the "big blocks" stuff... you have been so spoonfed by your echo chamber that you dont even know whats real anymore.

i have never been in the "big block" camp. so it seems your buddies have ben whispering so much crap to you that you dont even know whats happening.

as for your research into LN/bitcoin. after months of u saying 'theres no iou' you have not even bothered to read code, use LN or anything. you cant even counter argue beyond just saying an empty claim of basically, 'wrong coz franky said it'

you have been given plenty of time to actually look into it. but you have refused. so that is a flaw on your part.
goodluck with your head in the sand mindset. but one day i hope you wake up

P.S
'wrong because gibberish'
'wrong because franky'
'wrong because techno babble'
are empty counter points that only proves you have not/cannot come up with a valid answer

if you ever want to counter someone. use stats, code, data. if you cannot. then just hold back from pressing the reply button until you can

using LN you are in a contract with another entity. meaning they need to be online and in agreement just to authorise your IOU
using LN to pay random outsiders you rely on other entities that need to be online, in agreement, and funded

LN is not a push to destination. LN is a get parties to hot-potato their balances on your behalf


bitcoin is/was a digital cash source to destination one transfer.
LN  is like banking. where funds flow through the reserves of a local 'bank' then regional 'bank' the head office 'bank' then the destinations head bank, regional then local.. its why banks are identified by their 'routing/sort codes' so they can identify th path the funds need to route/sort through

LN is not new business idea/tech. its actually a very old business model. lock in gold make it sound like gold is expensive/slow to handle, offer some paper fast mthod of transfer but still try to persuade users not to settle back to real assets. if anything offer them other cheaper assets to exit via, such as nickel, copper coins