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

cryptocurrencies that use PoW have an underlying base value which is the cost of creation. no one is foolish to sell below the cost they used to make it. thus Pow has some advantage in that

as for how to make it eco-friendly.. well its already being done
1. if we still used GPU's it would take THOUSANDS of GPU/PSU's to get a terrahash of hashpower, and yet an ASIC is thousands of times more eco friendly
2. ASIC farms are moving away from coal/gas powerplants and moving to use renewable sourced powerplants.

however there could be new cryptocurrencies in the future where the creation of the units of measure(tokens/coin) have no impact on the ecology of the planet, but do have some financial backing/cost/requirement in its creation

not a whale. thats just an exchange

the 3D2oetNuZ... is associated with bitfinex

LN is not mooning
LN faking its growth by giving away balance via things like bitrefill and LNBIG

just lik previous fake adverts. spam has always been the tool certain people use to make bitcoin look bad to suggest that other things are needed more.

this happened during multiple spam attempts in the last 5 years trying to make it appear that bitcoin is having problems to then propose new bips/services/networks as the replacement.

an easy fix is simple
implement a fee priority that punishes spammers. and yes this can be made into a network rule which the network obeys even when those who want to do this subterfuge tactics pretend certain things are impossible purely because it would hurt their tactics if it were implemented

the solution is simple
the less confirms a UTXO has the more fee it has to pay.
thus spammer trying to respend balance every block pays 144 times more than an average person that only spends once a day. that way high fee's hurt those trying to hurt the network while not hurting average people.

that way not everyone is hurt by spammers, and infact those that have a genuine reason to spam every 10 minutes would see benefit in using LN themselves, rather than trying to hurt everyone to try the ploy of getting everyone onto LN, ven when everyone has no NEED for LN

things you will learn when you finally gt around to actually use LN:
1. values IN A CHANNEL  are not 8 decimal.
2. thus what is signed in channel is not even true BTC
3. unconfirmed transactions are not settled. until funds are settled you still owe the person value(imagine how cheques work when a cheque bounces/doesnt clear)
4. signing TO pay. is an agreement. AKA a contract. it is not actually the settled payment itself
5. saying that unconfirmed payments not on the blockchain are as good and final as confirmed blockchain payments is the foolish mindset of not understanding the point of ledgers/ and more specifically blockchain secured ledgers.
6. you may then learn that things like schnorr means that contracts/agreements dont need all parties signatures. (think about that)
7. if you think that an agreement is not a declaration of something you owe that you agree to pay. (emphasis: OWE) then you have much to learn about basic economics let alone bitcoin

i know you have not used LN. so understand it from the same logic of old tech 'signed value payments'

its much like going to court and agreeing you owe the court a fine. this does not mean setting/signing an agreement is in itself settling the debt

i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never sent to a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that is never cleared by a bank means you paid someone in full.
i dare you to argue that writing a cheque that bounces means you paid someone in full.

have a nice day

bitcoin tx is only a bitcoin tx when it confirms..

anyone can inject as many transactions through the relay network. but doesnt mean they will confirm. thus meaningless

there are ways to prevent it...
but the thing you dont realise is that bitmain do not actually manage the amount of hashpower you think they do.

hres some things you need to know that are not found on reddit/twitters propaganda mathia stream of scripts

1. the ASICS are made by TSMC not bitmain
its like the GPU mining days blaming ASUS motherboards for why ATI GPU are the most popular

2. though the hashpower of antpool is at 15%.. emphasis FIFTEEN PERCENT. that 15% is not a single facility managed by one company. its actually where antpool is a franchise business that has multiple franchisee's that MANAGE their own facilities.

3. to expand upon point 2. if you actually look at the blocks created by "antpool" you will see that there are like half a dozen different blockreward addresses. and each of those blockreard addresses show a pattern that they each have their own managemnt styles.. some are pro segwit, some are anti segwit. some do empty blocks some do most expensive tx's first.

4. continuing on from points 2 and 3. antpool blocks actually compete against each other. did you know that there was a block orphan of one "antpool" by another "antpool" (535510)

5. and most importantly. here is the thing. the only real thing a pool can do these days is just collate transactions. they cannot change the bitcoin rules. but here is the real funny part.
knowing that a transaction is not final until its confirmed and has enough blocks ahead of it to make it a case that its immutable. guess what. LN does not offer that same 'security' so if you want to care about double spend security / trust a payment is final. worry more about LN

anyway.. goodluck with your propaganda if you continue down the path that veryone should distrust mining pools but trust crappy offchain networks that dont require blockchains... as it seems to be a running theme these days that blockchains are broke and the future is managed accounts(the old banking business model of co-authorisation/permissioned funds)

you honestly think/trying to say people think a currency is better if they CANT use it when they like or for a cost they can afford??
really? (facepalm)


cheapness is about the COST. artificially raising the fee but limiting its utility is not about getting better quality, better utility. its about just raising the fee to make less people want to use it. to advertise an alternative product/solution as a replacement.

yep and your on a mission to pretend alternative networks are bitcoin(facepalm)

natural supply and demand. not artificially caused decrease in supply by making bloated tx sizes and stiffling the throughput potential


its not realistic to expect an alternative network like LN to be the replacement for what the original ethos of bitcoin was...
(should you ever dare challenge yourself to go learn and research what bitcoin truly is)

its not about being a "one true coin" (EG one world currency)
its about being a true coin that is barrierless to entry. that does not require some membership fee or large fee just to use
its about the whole point of blockchains/bitcoin being to get away from needing 'bankers' co-authority

i admit i am a bitcoin fan.
i guess you are admitting your not a bitcoin fan

doomad trying to advocate that transaction throughput should stay down purely to cause an 'open market' is stupid
your quote above about the need for a 'open market' does not show WHO actually benefits. from the artificial open market you advocate.
after all raising the fee just makes more people NOT want to use it.
the tx fee by raising it has NO positive inpact on the 'asset value' infact basic logic by having less desire to use bitcoin will actually cause the asset value to not increase
the tx fee by raising it has NO positive impact on the income of miners. infact by raising the fee to lets say $1(~$2k average total is not even 4% bonus. but will cause less people to want to transact. making the total less than~$2k meaning not a good bonus
its far better to have ways to get more people to adopt bitcoin than it is to deburden bitcoin of people..
that way with more people fee's stay low but the combined fee total adds up to be something that will eventually give miners an advantage(emphasis eventually: decades(smooth scaling).. not mass growth by midnight which u propagandise as the only onchain option)

doomad you advocation for alternative networks is absurd.
especially when that advocation is about advertising an alternative network that
uses pegged coins(12 decimals!!).
require other people to be online just to make payment.
require other people to have their own funding just to allow your payment to be passed via them
requires other peoples PERMISSION

EG
bitcoin. a homeless guy can just make a public key and sit on the streets displaying it.
LN. the homeless guy needs to 'buy a channel' and be online 24/7 to accept payments plus have other people involved that also need to be online to pass the payment. then also need to ensure other people dont route their own payments through the homeless guy taking the value away from the homeless guy.

do you even understand the whole point of bitcoin was to get away from needing 'managers' just to make a payment

we all know you will cry how you pretend core(who CAN slide in network changes without community agreement) have no control, yet deep down everyone can see you love that bitcoin network is now controlled and you love how funds on LN are a business model of control.

we all know you are dead against the true original ethos of bitcoin freedoms and your a strong advocate of capitalism/control.
we all know you are dead against a currency that could be used worldwide and even by the homeless

but the day you realise that you personally will not financially gain from the alternative networks. your blind careless mindset to dislike bitcoin will be your own downfall.

but here is a few lessons to you.
1. mayb you should spend more time on a LN forum. as you will seem to be a happier person there
2. trying to suggest that being a bitcoin fan is a bad thing, and how being a LN fan is a good thing does not help bitcoin
3. trying to suggest that loving LN is somehow loving bitcoin. when obviously they are separate networks, is your own false advertising,
4. your echo chamber of bitcoin scaling onchain is only achievable via X is your own false advertising
5. your echo chamber of bitcoin transacting is only achievable via X is your own false advertising

we all get it. you love the artificially crated 'open market' but you have failed at every opportunity to explain WHO benefits from it to actually make the 'open market' a positive thing FOR BITCOIN

cant wait for doomad to realise he wont get rich from LN. then he will realise his endless promotion of LN was for nothing.

doomad
all i hear is your insults blowing in the wind like a tumbleweed

if you want to find out if mining pools care about tx fees. GO DO SOME RESEARCH and ask them
ask them do they care about $400 or $62k

why should there be any fee pressure? again trying to pressure people to pay 20cents (ruling out many regions of the world..) purely to give pools $400?? makes no sense

secondly
'full node users' dont get anything from being full nodes. so its not like bitcoin fee's need to climb to keep things decentralised.

the whole situation is to FAKE that pools NEED $400+ and to do so, by saying that fee's need to rise, and to do that transaction throughput needs to be restricted.

what i find truly foolish and stupid is you actually are advocating for restricting transaction throughput. plus onto of that you are actively promoting deburdening bitcoin of its utility, while trying to offer people to use other networks

your just emotional that your not 'getting rich' and you dont like it that i am pro bitcoin and anti fiat enrichment

actually. this is a discussion forum. whr people talk and discuss informationa and opinions. if you dont like mine. press the ignore button.
if you think that this forum is some kind of 'vetoing' venue with some power to oveer-rule code and network protocols. then you have no clue.
learn the difference between information and opinion, vs the code consensus.. oh and then learn that code doesnt string out of nowhere but is developed by developers.
and then learn that before developers dont their controversial hardkfork on august first 2017 to fake a victory.. core was only getting 35% as of spring 2017. meaning 65% not wanting cores bip..

you may learn this if you actually done some research and learned about bitcoin. rather than just trying endlessly to stop people talking about things you dislike

mining pools do not care about tx fee's
the block reward is adequate payment.(its why pools do empty blocks or dont just accept top fee tx's)
also if the blockreward is not adequate then things like the bitcoin deflationary value will take care of that, as has been the case for the last 9 years

again pools dont think tx fee's are significant nor important nor necessary right now.
2000tx of 20cent = $400
vs
12.5*$5000=$62k
pools do not even think about the $400 compared to $62k..
yet 2000 people DO care about the 20cent fee.
20cent actually rule out a significant prcentage of population where that 20cent is mor than an hours wage.

there is no point in trying to push for a fee war now under the foolish and empty argument of benefiting pools. if the pools themselves dont care.

the real reason stupid foolish fiatlovers are trying to push for a bitcoin fee war, is to make bitcoin look bad, look useless, look expensive. just so they can advertise the only way to buy things is not via blockchains but via managed accounts (old tech banking)

put it this way. under the pretense of not moving the transaction count of BITCOIN NETWORK
to cause an even income stream of say $62k. each ''offchain' open/settlement =$31
who would pay $31

imagine going to a bar/pub and they said they can offer a bartab system of 'cheap fee's' but they had a bartab setup and a bartab settlement fee of $31 each side.. not only would you laugh at the barman... but you would also avoid using the bar/pub

i really find it stupid how many people think that fee wars are positive and needed

GPU mining is the most expensive
think about how many motherboards, PSU's and GPU's you would need just for 1 terrahash..
think of the power requirements

this topic has got nothing to do with blockchains

its more about API calls
in otherwords how 2 computers talk to each other.

its nothing to do with hashlocked blocks of data that are linked together in a chain of blocks

windfury
you dont use LN, you dont understand LN. so why are you always trying to promote LN

LN is not bitcoin
not all nodes are individual people

check this out
https://1ml.com/location/us/va
"LNBIG.COM[LND-1], LNBIG.COM[LND-2],LNBIG.COM[LND-3],LNBIG.COM[LND-4],LNBIG.COM[LND-5],LNBIG.COM[LND-6],LNBIG.COM[LND-7],LNBIG.COM[LND-8],LNBIG.COM[LND-9],LNBIG.COM[LND-10],LNBIG.COM[LND-11],LNBIG.COM[LND-12],LNBIG.COM[LND-13],LNBIG.COM[LND-14],LNBIG.COM[LND-15],LNBIG.COM[LND-16],LNBIG.COM[LND-17],LNBIG.COM[LND-18],LNBIG.COM[LND-19],LNBIG.COM[LND-20],LNBIG.COM[LND-21],LNBIG.COM[LND-22],LNBIG.COM[LND-23],LNBIG.COM[LND-24],LNBIG.COM[LND-25],LNBIG.COM[LND-26],LNBIG.COM[LND-27],LNBIG.COM[LND-28],LNBIG.COM[LND-29],LNBIG.COM[LND-30],LNBIG.COM[LND-30],LNBIG.COM[LND-31], LNBIG.COM[LND-32],LNBIG.COM[LND-33],LNBIG.COM[LND-34],LNBIG.COM[LND-35],LNBIG.COM[LND-36],LNBIG.COM[LND-37],LNBIG.COM[LND-38],LNBIG.COM[LND-39],LNBIG.COM[LND-40],LNBIG.COM[LND-41],LNBIG.COM[LND-42],LNBIG.COM[LND-1],

those calling it a lightning bitcoin mainnet. or a bitcoin layer 2.. have no clue
those saying LN has great growth have no clue.

the sudden 'growth' is not real utility. but people 'buying channels' or getting free channels

one service offering "channel opening" is showing this as their tweet
https://twitter.com/lnbig_com/status/1112688601429614593
"Sum of all local balances from us: 618.75808533 BTC"

60% of LN balance belongs to one entity

try to READ. its you with the mis-understanding...
truly feel sorry for you doomad, you spent well more than a year with social drama but shown no sense of doing any practical bitcoin research

you might aswell go play around with fiat as your just wasting your time on a bitcoin forum as its obvious you know nothing about it and your not interested in protecting/innovating bitcoin

ok..

lets word it another way and see how deep you can dig your own holes doomad and windfury
if a totally different network with a different database/ledger stores a contract/tx with a different unit of measure but also 'resembles' that of what also exists on the btc network..

then you have just dug yourself a hoe to say bitcoincash and bitcoinsv are 'bitcoin'

P.S i personally consider bch and bchsv to be altcoins. but its seems doomad and windfury are soo hard in trying to dig deep that other networks dont have different tokens, dont have separation. that they must consider certain forks and alternative networks to actually be 'bitcoin'
.. rathr then just admit the obvious. that other networks are separate, especially when the payment system they use has different units of measure and rules