mindset error here is that the false assumtion is that BCH was:
1. bought at 0.18, for there to actually be a loss of 0.13 decline
2. bought at all, rather than obtained for free due to forks and ongoing mining. meaning BCH would actually be +0.05 not -0.13

gotta find it funny how so many people emphasis the "$20k" bitcoin day, as if everyone around the world all bought all of their bitcoin on that day, to now be making a $15k loss as of todays ~$5k

yet reality is that not many people actually bought right at the peak. meaning the peak price has no relevance to REAL gain/loss and is just a meaningless statistic for a history book.

same for BCH the price of a coin is just temporary drama.
same for BTC the price of a coin is just temporary drama.

people dont actually profit/loss from one years temporary drama ATH vs ATL. people actually profit/loss from the cost of the actual acquisition of asset vs the sell of the asset.
in short you never lose unless you sell at a loss

doomad is over using the term permissionless without understanding

first of all people can also say that bitcoin is permissionless. (doomads mindset) meaning doomad does has a right to write whatever he likes and have it activated as he wants.

yet

doomad also argues that bitcoin works by users deciding what they should follow. but this can be seen as countering doomads "permissionless" stance because he says it needs people to decide/follow

doomads flip flopping has got so bad that his narrative swings more than a bisexual sex addict, so much so that his points no longer follow a straight line

i think doomad should first learn what bitcoin is/does. also learn the tech behind bitcoin that solved a fundamental problem that cypherpunks were trying to deal with for so long, and how 'offchain' services do not solve this same issue and never will.

until he can grasp what the differences are. he will be stuck

once learning about bitcoin. may doomad than try to refine his narrative to a clear straight line path that does not meander in circles of social drama. and instead sticks to the point that can reference blockdata, stats, code and dev decisions.

for instance
bitcoins transaction/payment signing does not need 2nd/3rd party permission to sign a tx thats destined for someone. but when it comes to what was the 2009-2013 ideology of consensus. permission is needed to activate new features/protocols

doomad mixes up user interface utility vs code/protocol to serve his circular social drama
he then mixes up the user interface utility of bitcoin with that of alternative network/services to confuse the differences purely to promote the alternatives as (falsely) being the same.

core bypassed consensus to get an activation which under the 2009-2013 ideology of bitcoin would not have been activated.
core bypassed writing code that would satisfy the majority desires
core instead cut away a significant population to fake a majority of lesser population

if doomad actually understood the purpose of bitcoin. and the byzantine generals theory of finding unity in diversity. rather than (excuse the pun) segregation. he would understand how core broke the main principals of bitcoins revolutionary technology purely to make core dominant/incontrol/powerhouse of bitcoin. which in itself is again something else that is against the fundementals of bitcoins ideology(decentralisation)

 i really think doomad should take time to learn about bitcoin. or spend more time atleast just being more straight lined and just admit his adoration for alternative networks. maybe even spend more time on forums of those alternative networks

windfury, why have you decided to be a social drama queen. wouldnt it atleast benefit you to actually learn about the tech for once.
learn by USING, learn by reading CODE, checking stats
if you only want to learn via social drama, than your failing yourself

again do some actual research
you spend too much time with this social drama stuff that its becoming obvious your just on this forum to troll people and just shout "wrong coz [persons name]" without actually using any experience, code, stats, data

most of the balance is from bitrefill and LNBig giving out loads of free inbound balance

https://twitter.com/lnbig_com/status/1105801755265241094

https://twitter.com/lnbig_com/status/1112688601429614593
(~750 of 1000btc is related to LNBig)

so after many months of your nonsense. your 'proof' that LN is not pegged IOU is some quote of someone..

well again, do some actual research. and look into unconfirmed payments in millisats.
goodluck trying to counter argue that millisat based contracts are bitcoin confirmed funds.

i gave you many chances to update/correct your lack of knowledge. but it seemed you ignored the hints
so one more chance. hint: learn about millisats.
its the first stepping stone outside the echo chamber you have become stuck in.. please dont fear taking steps outside your echo chamber, the big wide world of reality is not as scary as yo may think.. enjoy learning new things

windfury.
just use LN, please its becoming too obvious your saying things without experience of what you speak.
your just as bad as doomad. you dont care about bitcoin you dont understand how things actually work, you just want to say some strange things just to try making people think LN is great and the future method people use for making payments.
all at the downfall of you both letting blockchains/bitcoin become stifled/deburdened of utility

i prefer to highlight how bitcoin is being stifled in the hopes new dev teams put core back in its place as not the controller but as just a participant of bitcoin. thus re-innovating bitcoin


as for you admirations of LN and over promoting/exaggerating/defining ln as utopia.. if you feel that millisats are not real, htlc / private commitments are not real. and if you feel that the too-and-throw of channel balance between channel partners is as settled and secure as blockchain confirmed funds then please try to actually make a case that blockchains are useless invention and how digital money could work without needing blockchains due to your belief that the private signed commitments between two parties is the same immutable/final/settld/guaranteed/paid off/ system as blockchains offer.
i dare you to try convincing yourself that the private signed commitments between channel parties is just as final as blockchain confirmed transaction

doomad you got no clue

seems your spinning yourself in circles.
enjoy your flip flops and social drama but your the one missing the point.

time you step back take some fresh air in, have a coffee and spend time learning about bitcoin. not your social drama

kind of funny how you say democracy is impossible.. you kinda miss the point of consensus.. both the dictionary definition and the bitcoin utility definition of such

if you dont understand what made bitcoin such a revolutionary thing when the white paper first came out showing how it solved something. just admit it.
but denying the thing it solved as being 'impossible'. means you are failing.

you might want to check the code, check the blockdata, check with devs and do some research before hitting the reply button..
learn the difference between consensus and controversial forks
learn the byzantine generals theory and satoshi's solution
learn the purpose of bitcoin and what the revolutionary technology is/was
hint. learn what actually happened. not what you advocate

bitcoin is digital.
it is code
CODE
not conversation

code does not write itself
devs write code
for a new rule to be proposed devs need to CODE it
if devs CODE it in a way that controversially 'sends off' a controversial amount of users then you cant pretend the devs were not involved

i really find it funny that people think bitcoin is just social drama and such are only interested in performing social drama rather than speak about actual code and actual protocols.

you literally debunked yourself


"required" "permission" "appealing".... thats your words..
this is a discussion forum about bitcoin. it is not the bitcoin network that uses consensus. my opinions are just a discussion. it is you that is getting emotional and insulting and trying to make out that my discussion is somehow powerful.

all i ever tell people is just to do their own research and try to avoid becoming anti-bitcoiners like you and your echo chamber that just want to do social drama emotional stuff to then promote alternative networks

plus. learn consensus
consensus is about unifying people. not having excuses to throw people off the network
you really have no clue about what the byzantine generals theory is, or how satoshi's solution to it is actually the opposite of 'throw everyone off'

i truly believe in the real world you would be seen as a person who has many prejudices and is probably racist by the tone your messages on this forum show as to how to react to people of opposing stance to you

your so emotional that you are actually flip floping so much you are forgetting which path your following and what path your suppose to be debating.
its YOU that has been saying that its ok to do network affecting 'send off' (controversial forks) prior to bip activations, purely to achieve a bip activation by faking the threshold requirement.

so how about do yourself a small favour, take a few days to refresh yourself, have a break. chill out, calm down. and use the time to learn about bitcoin from actual research. and by bitcoin i mean bitcoin 2009-2013.. (not from the prospective(prospectus) of core)
learn things like byzantine generals theory, consensus, as it would help you to learn the whole purpose of blockchains and how the network should be decentralised and not just a core distribution.

then you might start grasping how blockchains have a purpose and function that LN does not. and how LN is not secure. then learn about LN practically and pragmastically rather than the delusions or promotional buzzwords.

once you gain a good scope of understanding the technology. then try to form discussions about the tech. without the emotional social drama of ignoring the tech just to argue with humans that are not coding the network.
in other words. if your trying to insult a person rather than tech or devs. your not doing things right

ontopic:
my posts above were about
how LN is not mooning due to veriblock. but due to how LN factories are giving away balance
how to solve a spam incident like veriblock is/was/may be causing can be solved by implementing a working fee priority mechanism(yes its possible)

as for doomad, the social drama flip flopper. well he can get emotional easity when people agree with him. so expect alot of insults

but again for emphasis before doomad pokes the bear, gets bit and then pretends he is the victim of meandering topics
ontopic:
my posts above were about
how LN is not mooning due to veriblock. but due to how LN factories are giving away balance
how to solve a spam incident like veriblock is/was/may be causing can be solved by implementing a working fee priority mechanism(yes its possible)

you have the personal perogative to go into console menu of your own persona node and IP ban who you like when you like.

but when a dev team creates CODE that automates throwing users off a network on mass. not due to them running incompatible rules. but due to them not wanting a NEW rule to change the network. thats a different thing.

kicking people off the network to activate a new rule falsely is different than kicking off people whos rules dont match the current active rules

stop flip floping and stay with the actual reality of what actually occured.

P.S my opinion is based on reading code and reading block data. your opinion is based on reddit/twitter scripts of social drama
also my opinion is just a discussion. for you to be so emotional about a discussion reveals too much about how your own motives lay.

you keep on insinuating that my words on this forum are somehow affecting the network. you insinuate it by emotionally mentioning how im appealing and asking for peoples permission...
sorry but thats not what discussions boards do. .. learn how bitcoin works and you will learn its CODE made by DEVS that people need to care about and scrutinise.
but i do find it funny how you want people to ignore devs and not care about code, but to instead do your failed social drama crap that somehow my words on a forum are stronger than code.. (hint you got no clue how bitcoin works with such mindset)

i really do hope you wake up one day and realise you wont get financial gain from your motives, and instead you spend some time learning about bitcoin, rather than trying to promote your endless rants that you fel the only solution to changing bitcoin is to get people to stop using it so that the only ones left are a certain breed of users that you can echo chamber with

because LN is a separate network. and BITCOIN was changed to meet LN needs(not the other way round) the same group that instigated hardforks using consensus bypasses in 2017 to make bitcoin LN compatible. will do the same thing again to make the bitcoin units of account more appear to be the same as LN's pegged tokens. to attempt to hide that LN is pegged tokens

learn millisats

with 8 decimals the year 2140~ is the year mining rewards cant be divided. but adding 1000 subunits means that bitcoin can have many more 'bitcoin halving' events beyond 2140
eg 1000, 500,250,125 which is 4 extra NON-Rounded halvings which is 16 years of more units of account bing added to circulation

what you also have to realise is that at code/PROTOCOL level units of account are measured in satoshi's. so messing with the units of account do actually matter. once you look beyond the propaganda hype and buzzwords of human drama and the user interface and look at the code you will realise that the units of account changing from
~2,100,000,000,000,000
~2,100,000,000,000,000,000 matters

yes some people will buzzword it that its still going to be 21m 'bitcoins' . but the reality is a 'bitcoin' is a basket term for 100,000,000 satoshis
much like saying a banana pallet is 1000 banana's. and then saying there are only ever 100 pallets in a truck. yet by adding 10 banana's per pallet and still trying to say there are only 100 pallets, does not hide the fact that there are now 1000 extra banana's that can be shared around

1. well learn how millisats work. then you might have some insight and able to contribute to a real debate rather that just ignore technical matters and think things are different than reality

2.LN is not growing due to natural growth. bitrefill and LNbig are both giving away balance
did you know that LNBig has many nodes and as much as 7000+ channels it set up as part of its giveaway. this is not normal users putting in thier own balance and connecting to peers they want to spend their pegged coins with. this is LNBig and bitrefill giving away channels to cause a fake accounting of channel/node numbers

3.i am not angry at the technology, i am angry about the methods a certain group use to implement wishy washy things that do not positively help bitcoin.

4. as for doomad thinking his selective quoting helps him, what he doesnt realise is that after months of core trying to ridicule me about the anyonecanspend issue. they themselves actually backed down, realised their fault and actually changed things to actually work around the issue that anyonecanspend would have caused if they implemented it the initial way they intended.
they wanted to just release wallets that could formulate segwit transactions before any network threshold was met. which would have caused a huge mess. (the point i was making 2016)
they then tried to do a proper consensus but only attained 35%.(which showed core were still not finding solutions a majority could agree on early 2017)
so instead of finding a community agreeable proposal. they doubled down on forcing the activation by literally cutting out nodes and pools that didnt agree with core (another separate debate i disagreed with summer 2017)

all in all. segwit would have HAPPILY got activated easier, safer sooner and without controversy and with proper natural majority, if it included features the community also wanted.

those in the BCH crowd did net announce an activation date, to which core reacted with a core activation date
core announced a controversial aparthied-esq event to force off the opposition. code, devs and even the blockchain can prove it first and bch reacted
(bch didnt make their first block until AFTER core pushed them off)
not sure why you try to alter history when devs themselves and cod and the blockchain are happy to admit it.
as for the segwit2x again removing them off the network BEFORE a proposal even gets activated is not consensus

consensus: consent of the majority.
throwing off a part of the population is not fair consensus. its controversial fork to fake consensus
consent of the majority is about voting. again you thinking core should just do anything and control the network as they deem fit is totalitarian/tyranny.

its time you learned consensus, byzantine generals theory, and how proposals should be activated.
letting a group of devs just throw out opposition BEFORE a proposal threshold is reached is not the way to handle a proposal.
throwing out opposition AFTER a feature upgrade is different. do not ever again try to confuse the former by pretending the latter.
hint
segwit reached threshold 24th august. and only should such network affecting 'send offs' occur happen after. to reduce orphan risk of differing 'network magics'.. but the august 1st and august 7th 'send off' purely to fake agreement to a threshold. (proven by devs, code(yep your own link) and by blockchain) is not how consensus works nor seen as a fair system

as for the topic
you say
thinking the solution is just to send off users is wrong.. i completely wonder what planet you are from where you think the answer to everything is to throw users off by force/only option
the solution is not also to just let it ride and affect EVERYONE and just call it a 'victim of its own success' when the victimisation is caused by core implemented coding
a possible solution is to put in a fee priority mechanism as a network magic(yes it can be done, you proved it yourself with your admiration for core doing such consensus bypassing processes)
but even without doing it the 'core way' and implementing it under fair consensus. the result would be the same. spammers pay more than non spammers. thus only spammers become the victims. and only the spammers have to make the choice to change their methods.

you can repeat it all you like. but what you say holds no details that counters what is real.
maybe try using LN, learn LN and actually understand/research it.

try to learn about millisats. as this will be the stepping stone that will teach you about the unconfirmed private agreements(iou) that are not bitcoin.
a 12 decimal token that shows a different destination for its value than the 8 decimal bitcoin on the blockchain. cannot co exist and both be committed/settled.
one has to be a real committed settled value, the other has to be an unsettled private agreement(iou) which due to it being 12 decimal, is a peg of a 8 decimal

hint/emphasis for your first step, millisat
and dont pretend millisats dont exist

bitcoin transactions that dont confirm are not paying someone in full
thats the point mr flip flop.
the LN channel balance of 12 decimals is not transactions that get broadcast. emphasis on the fact that the payments are signed in 12 decimal values which the bitcoin network wont accept
the LN channel balance is not final. its just a temporary agreement (agreeing who owes what) at the specific time but not settling.
emphasis OWING. emphasis: not settling

as for your abundantly clear "Secondly, Lighting isn't a chequing account or a bank. " wow now thats major proof.. why even quote yourself saying something which lacks detail/proof, and is just you saying something you dont understand repeatedly.

your memory seems to be trippy.
the nodes that were thrown off the network august 2017 were not offering anything that would break the rules. if the core devs did not do their controversial fork.. guess what. the network would continue as is. no issues. it was the core devs who implemented their network controversy BEFORE.. i'll repeat this multiple times BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE cores desired NEW feature even activated.
core only done the controversial fork to FAKE consensus, to just be able to get an activation at a later date.
again CORE threw nodes off the network. not because the opposition were breaking the network of cores new feature(as it was not even active). but because the opposition were against cores FUTURE feature.
meaning not everyone agreed to core. so instead of core morally stepping back and accepting the network was not happy with core. core threw out opposition to fake agreement.

you have been told this many times over the last year, even the blockdata, code and even core devs have shown thats what happened. so dont try your standard flip flop tricks of trying to change history.
and i do find it funny now your pretending that your opinion is that devs dont referee the network to 'send off' opposing parties.

you made it clear multiples times before that you actually advocate devs ability and devs rationale for doing such tactics.
but hey if all you can do is flip flop, have memory issues, or just insult as your reply. then you really are digging deep at the bottom of the barrel for excuses for your mindset
. but ill remind you one last time
you wont make income from LN and it wont make you have stable income, wealthy or rich. so the sooner you realise that your motivation to promote LN for financial gain will fall flat. then maybe you will change your agenda and start instead caring more for bitcoin and actually learning about bitcoin.

have a nice day. but goodluck with having the realisations you have yet to make

as for the topic at hand. my opinion (unlike yours) is not to digress down a path where you think the only option is to divert people to different networks by force. but instead to cause only those affecting tx fee's to be affected by the fee's thus if they want to save money they can stop their spammy patterns or use LN. which is also a situation which would interest you and your friends. thus everyone wins and no innocent parties are punished/affected

very true
fun facts
pepsi-co waste more on electric to keep their bottles refrigerated than bitcoin uses. and that refrigeration cost does not protect bottles for eternity/immutably. it just keeps them cool for a short period before it ends up as human urine

fun facts
the funds raised by 'carbon tax' dont go towards planting new tree's in rainforsts. its actually wasted on corporations that develop land into new real estate by them buying up cheap land near waterways and then getting eco-grants to raise the ground level to reduce risk of flooding to their own private property.
(also yes some of the carbon tax ended up paying for some of them man made islands in the middle east)

yet even before rules even changed. devs have and DID code stuff to send off parties that they disagreed with purely because those parties were not interested in a certain proposal.

that said. without causing a fork war attempt to 'send off' offending parties. the solution is simple. price the spammers that want to multispend out of using bitcoin where other networks and niche services would benefit THEM.
without having the same spammer affecting everyones fee's to cause everyone, even those that dont multispend into the false belief that LN is the saviour for everyone

hint. make the spammers(multispenders) use LN and leave average joe using real bitcoin network cheaply. win win for everyone


P.S definitely keeping this quote for context of other topic doomad flip flops, in regards to your opinion on controversial apartheid causing forks to fake activation thresholds(thank you for digging your own hole deeper)

that energy consumption index is wrong on so many levels

hers some logic
lets use the high of 50exahash
thats
=3,571,428~ 14thash asics which use 1.3khw
=4642857~ kwh
=4642.9 mhw = 4.6gwh
=40671gw per year = 40tw per year PEAK

we all seen that there have been more efficient asics in the last 6 months. so the number would be lower than 40tw/year
we all seen that there has been hashrates of under 40exa in the last 6 months. so the number would be lower than 40tw/year

the 'energy consumption index is using very outdated ASIC tech stats and not even calculating the asic stats vs real hashrates to get a true 'energy consumption index'

from june 2018-december2018 there is no way was the bitcoin network at 75tw