people can create lots of code to encrypt balance value so that only those intended to read the data can see it.. but then a simple spam session can counter it

EG
imagine a channel was transparent a[$20:$20]b[$10:$0]c
then imagine some company employed a cryptologist
imagine a channel was encrypted a[e5qd:e5qd]b[c2hj:a1pg]c

people would be like WOW theres no way for A to know what B has to give C
well
A could just spam
a: 'can i pay C $1' b:'yes'
a: 'can i pay C $3' b:'yes'
a: 'can i pay C $6' b:'yes'
a: 'can i pay C $9' b:'yes'
a: 'can i pay C $12' b:'no'
a: 'can i pay C $11' b:'no'
a: 'can i pay C $10' b:'yes'

now A knows that c2hj=$10

stats dont also account for spammers

EG
i send out
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
then next block
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
then next block
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)
then next block
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc) -> 1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (2btc)
1MeFr4nky1Addr355 (1btc)

the stats show that in 40 minutes 8btc has moved. but in reality i still have and always had just 2btc so reality is only 2btc ever moved

take some exchanges that like to refresh their cold store. they start with say 60,000btc and end up with the same 60,000btc but they pushed the 60k coins through 10 layers of spam transactions (600k volume)
which statistically would be $3bill volume. but actually only 60k moved to a new final cold store that day($300k)

this topics idea is no better than current state of affairs.

firstly if using the scenario of say 20mb(WU)(5mblegacy) mempool size where
5sat is priority(0-4mbWU(0-1mb leg)) next block,
4sat is less priority(4-8mbWU(1-2mb leg)) second block,
3sat is less priority(8-12mbWU(2-3mb leg)) third block,

a spammer pays 5sat, gets confirmed then instantly throws that utxo into a new tx of 5 sat and is instantly in the priority nxt block listing.
meaning those that paid 4sat are not guaranteed to be in the second block as the spammer is in the second block too

this, like current status just leads to games of everyone just paying ever increasing amounts, until people give up and the price then eventually resettles until people realise it settled down to then play another round of ever increasing amounts

what needs to be done is bring back a fee formulae that is a consensus rule (have to abide by) which actually has options.

EG if a tx is only 1confirm deep its 'score' is lower than someone with 144 confirms. so the spammer(1confirm) has to pay more to raise its score to be given priority.
this way it actually makes spammers pay the price, where as occassional spenders are not affected by th price. and by using the score based system its not a everyone is hit by a premium due to a few users.

this way it actually make spammers who multispend daily having to pay more, then become more incentivised to spam less or use offchain solutions. while the occassional non abusive user is not paying out alot but getting their transactions noticed by miningpools collating transactions

to explain better

nope
firstly. LN's HTLC's can be renegged on.
secondly they can themselves become locked from utility due to OTHERS multiple route hops away.
thirdly they are not even in a 'balance' the originated coin of the peg would recognise.
fourthly in bitcoin a transaction is source to destination complete in one tx. (gets confirmed or not. pass or fail)
with LN it requires multiple htlc's where party of each HTLC all need to be online and communicating just for success(too many if's)

LN is a separate network. and bitcoin had to change to be LN compatible (not the other way round)

LN will use many tricks and concepts and that includes ones from other networks because LN is NOT a bitcoin network
LN is a independant network for HTLC pegged tokens of any compatible coin

so if bolts uses zcash or xrp concepts. then if those concepts go beyond LN's HTLC and try to mess with broadcastable CLTV tx's then the compatible coins would need to change to, to be able to accept the changes.

again LN is not a unique feature for/of bitcoin

also. here is a funny thing. privacy is very cheap. its simple. just dont ask for personal info when coding requests.. its actually more expensive and time consuming to be antiprivacy because then you have to code in features like asking for ID and otherstuff

EG.. just balance info.
want balance info of routes to be private.. fine. just dont code an api call asking for balance info. then no on will know

more social drama rants from windfury about believe personality a or personality B.
pretty shameful he misses the point of DYOR(do your own research)

if only he spent more time researching and less time just naming names to follow/avoid. he too would know more about bitcoin and less about social drama

that said.
lightning hasnt grown much due to real utility/adoption. its justmore sybill stats just to try faming it up for sponsorship

you usually spot the people who dont do technical research/code reading. and just wanna name names. they intensify their efforts when certain events like roundtables, consensus conferences and code-a-thons occur because they want to get people talking about faketoshi and not actual bitcoin technicals.

windfury has moved into the troll group that loves the namecalling finger pointing buzzwording foolishness that whenever something technical is mentioned the main reply is just 'wrong because X said it'

as for windfury with his endless pastes of 'no iou' no 'pegged coins'
if he just done research on the difference between bitcoins CLTV tx  vs LN's HTLC tx he will see the IOU
if he just done research on the difference between bitcoins satoshis  vs LN's msats he will see the pegged tokens

but its been pages of discussion and weeks-months of opportunity for windfury to do some independant bitcoin research.. and yet he declines

ok you continue in your echo chamber..

how about research next time
if you want to learn

here is DCG.co with their NYA
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

'    Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
    Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months'

6 month gap where its plenty of time to activate 1x as a hardfork but strangely not implementing the 2x as a single event.. but for months later allowing plenty of time to back out

because dcg.co (blockstream(main core dev) investors) knew core would kick out 2x
even your buddies doomad,gmax, achowe cant deny that (disconnect servicebit 6 and 8 )

the NYA agreement was never about getting segwit2x. it was just a carrot and stick to get 1x active

oh and because you love the social drama and want to stay within one group. you might aswell try to get into DCG as they are offering a gateway into thier group of companies.
but here is a tip, dont bother applying for a technical position, you seem to lack them skills. maybe aim for the social media marketing side.

atleast your echo chamber will then be your paid colleagues and you wont have to try fighting as much to prove your allegiance to their cause

windfury you already know the social drama

DCG.co (barry silbert) headed up NYA,
DCG.co who owns blockstream, bloq, coinbase, circle. btcc and many others who wanted and needed segwit. they knew they needed to sway people to accept segwit, so they done the false promise of x2 IF  segwit(x1) activates first.

the dcg.co was the false choice pretense of offering x2.. but the reality was just to get segwit1x activated.

after all the blockstream crew already had code ready to knock out the x2 as soon as x1 activated

i think what the topic creator is asking is about full bitcoin nodes/spv which interact with ntwork nodes (random connections)

things like electrum and other lite wallets rely on more specified/listed servers as a dependant parent (third party)
thus as the topic creator said not relying on third party so suggesting electrum is not the solution to the topic creators issue.

the thing the topic creator is also hinting is that he cant see if his recent transaction is confirmed independently (using a full node/spv) untill the blockchain is fully downloaded. (stored full node / then pruned spv)
...

the topic creator then uses an example of having full node peers giving status updates of particular transactions using an example that resembles that of what lite wallets and webserver api's do. i feel the topic creator is just saying there needs to be a way to see confirmed balance without having too wait for the full sync when using a full node or SPV AND not having to rely on specific server/third parties

i did approach the topics scenario firstly with the mindset that the solution is to simply get a node to bloomfilter particular addresses for updated info from random peers.
pro: independence from specific 3rd party as request can be made to any relay network node
con: the user needs to regularly spam request its random peers to get update info

i also approached the topics scenario with the mindset that getting random peers to temporarily monitor said bloomfiltered addresses for a short period (1 hour-1day) and then the peers specially announce when certain known tx's appear.
pro: independence from specific 3rd party server
con: temporary dependant on certain peer for a temporary period
con: adds extra 'parenting' services to peers who are the 'temporary monitor'.
con: peers get to know certain addresses other peers are interested in (the privacy concern of bloom filtering being abused in such a way)

the way i see a solution would be to have a UTXO set milestoned periodically and also have beside it a updating utxo set that shows the relevant changes since the milestone.

this way a node can get updated info from the random relay network, without having to download the entire blockchain. and without having to hand specific peers a list of specific addresses to monitor

that way without having to download the full blockchain first. without having to list specific addresses, network peers can request updated info on confirmed transactions from network peers independently via the main relay network

my thoughts
1. you mention average returns. but you first have to define average of what..
   average of highs - not good as thats speculation which not everyone gets to experience/take advantage of
   average of lows - though this solves the issue with previous, you then have to think of start date for each average
             average of day? week? month? year?

2. also this stat is maybe 'positive' hype giving. but practically not helpful. for instance people trade individually so although a blanket average looks positive, each user has different experiences. like i personally dont think about yearly average. i just day trade some play money and make 1% a day meaning getting over 300% a year even on periods where prices look stagnant
(cumulatively earns more then compound)

when it comes to 'averages' anyone can manipulate numbers not by changing the numbers, but changing the context of the numbers. as i said average of highs would be different to average of lows even if the start and end dates matched. then average of highs/lows would be different by changing the start and end date, then theres the cumulative vs compound things.

so all-in-all. nice bit of small hype stat, but not really a fact finding stat everyone benefits/experiences/receives

in january 2018 the price was over $10k and 2019 the price was under $5k so if your tax is based on value as of january each year. your at a loss. thus paying LESS tax this year

shower thought.
seems your echo chamber seems today to be trying to draw you into the bitcoincash drama.
maybe concentrate on the core dev/ln dev drama instead. (yea i recognise your meander attempts)

lightning is not a suspended zero-conf for many reasons.

1. the lock of bitcoins(cltv) in satoshis on the blockchain can outpass the timelimit of mempool drop offs.
2. the lock of bitcoins(cltv) in satoshis vs the temporary lock(htlc) of lightning pegged millisats are not the same tx
(ln payments are not bitcoin tx's)

3. core added silly things like CPFP and RBF and more that reallocate which zero confirm bitcoin tx is of importance to a mempool
4. due to the direct IP connection of LN node counterparts its actually VERY EASY to relay tx1 to counterpart to hold in their mempool while doing a pushtx to mining pools a tx2.. and while ln node counterpart sees tx1 waiting.. a mining pools is collating tx2 into a block thus only tx2 ends up in a block

reality check:

the small towns treasury when they want to receive property tax would say to the debtor 'you owe us $100'
when debtor pays with fiat via a credit card the treasury gets $98.25
when debtor pays with bitcoin via coinberrypay the treasury gets $99.50
(0.5% fee vs 1.75%)

BUT
here is the thing
the debtor is not paying exactly $100 in both examples


imagine it this way.
0.02btc on coinbase was $100
0.02btc on bitfinex was $101
0.02btc on binance was $99

but imagine coinberry pay used binances rate.
someone would need to pay 0.02020202

but imagine coinberry pay used bitfinex rate.
someone would need to pay 0.01980198

now the difference of 0.0202 and 0.0198 is 0.0004 or in short 2%
meaning the reality is from debtor to town treasury there can be a actual value swing of
2.5% going from fiat->btc->fiat

this is the reality check. because most gateway services say low fee's but then mess with users on the 'spread' (exchange rate) which is not a 'fee'

and you too make many assumptions

you think LN will be out of beta?.. well bitcoin(the separate network that uses a good blockchain security model) is 10 years old and devs are too afraid to say its out of beta. so dont expect anything different with ln, especially when LN is more flawed, buggy and impractical.

compared to a well advertised, talked about network called bitcoin thats 10 years old and still not main stream.. im starting to wonder how long you expect it to take to have LN 'mainstream'

stays as a niche for bitcoin.. ha.. never was.
remember bitcoin and other coins were edited to become LN compatible.
LN was node made to be bitcoin compatible

i never bother with all time highs. as hardly anyone is online, deposited into exchanges intime to take advantage. but if basing thing on the LOWS, where everyone gets to experience atleast this amount. then its more a fair number

2015 - $177
2016 - $300(70%)
2017 - $900(200%)
2018 - $3600(300%)

edit: typo (alcohol and writing a 5 second math brainfart dont mix some nights )

HTLC's can be reneged on
HTLC's are not even bitcoin transactions (msats units) a HTLC will not broadcast to a blockchain
renegociating how much they OWE each other without actually settling up, is the very definition of an IOU

as for fractional reserves. because LN is off chain. because its not community audited and the contracts are private between 2 people. they CAN both agree privately to say they have more then they really do.
EG instead of having $10 of real balance in a channel. they can say they have $160 in a channel thus letting others outside the partnership form route through them for $160 and thus the other outside part hand over $160
a[$160:$000]b[$010:$000]c   here A wants to pay C $160. but it wouldnt happen because B has only $10 hand to C
a[$160:$000]b[$160:$000]c   B:C can privately agree to say B has $160 to give to C just to get A to hand B $160

yes its possible because A does not get all the private details of b:c channel
you probably are wondering why would C agree to a lie about $160 in B:C if all C can get in 'real value' is $10
well there are many reasons. hacks, blackmail, extortion, friendship, malicious intent,, future owings, previous owings

LN has no auditors its just private agreements between counterparts and yes this can be abused
pleas take some time using LN, not with a fluffy unicorn utopia hat. but a critical thinking bug spotting hat/mindset. then when you spot the bugs and flaws that can be abused. you will see not only why LN is not that great. but you will start to appreciate why bitcoin(the real bitcoin with a blockchain) IS so great.
hopefully then you will start to recognise the double spend solution the byzantine generals solution and the other features of bitcoin which before 2009 were unsolved and had cypherpunks scratching their heads for years prior trying to solve.

at this moment LN nodes are already handing out channels with funds even before the supposed pegged bitcoin blockchain transaction gets a confirm.
at this moment LN nodes are already handing out channels with funds even without a bitcoin blockchain transaction. because the entities funded each other in other methods(coinbase balance, fiat, gold, altcoin)
(research-> bitrefill: thor turbo channel)

this is where things like factories start becoming part of the conversation too. but i think you need to start on the basic research before progressing to the more detailed stuff.

less that 1.26m coins held by exchanges, institutions...

i think not
just looking at the "rich list"

1,000 - 10,000      1871    25.83% (41.84%)
10,000 - 100,000   100      12.77% (16.01%)
100,000 - 1,000,000   5      3.24% (3.24%)

42% of coins are held in single addresses of atleast 1000btc
id say that 42% is not 'individuals'

by the way, predicting the possible rebuttle
if coins are held in a privkey solely under control of an exchange. then the exchange OWNS the coins

streaming sites already have the full movie uploaded in HD.
a main clean site without ads is flixtor.to

people are like 2 years out of date.

"china" mining is already diversified into other countries a long time ago.
georgia, iceland, eastern europe, america, and so on.

anyone who in 2019 continues to scream "china own/control mining" are the inept squad that love to sound like the fox news crowd of racists that dont get true factual information regularly