you still got no clue.
i really worry about the source material that your getting.
everything from understanding bitcoin. byzantine generals theory, consensus, blockchains, what segwits purpose is, what mining is how the mining industry is structured. even stuff like LN.

you spend soo much time repeat the same boring false stuff propagandised around reddit and twitter. and yet after sooo sooo many months i have not yet seen an original and independent thought.

just imagine if you just took a month and used that month to really learn things about bitcoin. instead of getting involved in the social drama

what i have been continually telling you is this:
1. LN is NOT the bitcoin network. LN is its own separate network
2. just like all altcoins just because a transaction (for settlement) look like a particular format does NOT make them a bitcoin transaction
3. a bitcoin transaction of confirmed settle funds is only a bitcoin transaction of confirmed settled ffunds when its on the bitcoin blockchain
4. anything NOT on the bitcoin blockchain is not a bitcoin transaction

once you learn the above you understand how people writing fake cheques and counterfeit bank notes still OWE people funds once its realised that the funds are not real/wont settle/confirm

5. payments/invoices htlcs are NOT bitcoins. they are not even 8 decimals
6. the 12 decimal payments WILL NEVER EVER EVER settle on a bitcoin blockchain.. EVER
7. the channel is just an agreement/promise between 2 parties. a contract. yes a promise/agreement/contract are all the same thing

even a marriage contract is a promise. a commitment is a promise. but there is no 100% guarantee its final. its an ongoing thing that can change. "i PROMISE to love honour and obey in sickness and in health"
LN is not a immutable settled fund. its a promise. AKA an IOU
LN is not 8 decimil measured. its 12 decimal. so its not even the same unit of account. thus is pegged
EG
imagine you bought $10 of game funds. the game funds are 10000millidollars.. they are not $10. they are pegged balance to represent $10 but they are not actually $10.
same thing with 'stablecoins' they are not real fiat, but pegged tokens to represent real bank balance.

only the bitcoin blockchain is the final immutable state
if its not on the blockchain its not a guarantee, its just a promise, hope/maybe

8. there is no community support to audit the LN payment values tally against bitcoin network locked funds. it is just the channel partners that agree they are happy with how the channel is set up (what happens in channel stays inchannel)
9. if i paid you ~$4k in fiat. i would not care how you done it but i would want/expect/agree to a LN channel with ~1btc in LN balance..
10. if i paid you $400 i would be more than happy and agree to getting 1btc in LN balance
11. after the playing around with LN balance has been done. the balance is NOT sent to the bitcoin network. instead it goes back to you (or in the case of bitrefill, them) and they aggregate and decide what to do next.
12. once you update your research on watchtowers and factories you will learn that bitrefill is acting like a factory. they create the value and the channel party just agrees with it. thats how LN works(emphasis point 8 )

my answer to this is. its not the basement dwelling hobbiest who sets up a node that allows 8000+ connections to be a good 'hub'. as thats then just socio-political risk of getting caught if they dont register as a custodian/msb.
plus these hobbiest hubs wont have the liquidity to honour their promises of funding say $60 each for 8000 users ($480,000)

its the established businesses that self declare they are regulated custodians and are publicly advertising that for X fee they offer quality trustable service and best online % uptime, best liquidity of routes and best chance of route success. all available in exchange for some registration/basic ID requirements

.. after all why do you think things like coinbase.com are so popular even with kyc headaches and 1.5% fee's..
because people think that regulation=protection/trust/honour

after all.. in a world where paper money is still a thing. why do you think people even bother using a bank.
its never truly about 'force' its about planting the utopian thought that something is great if you use a commercial service/ network which has restrictions/limitations/headaches, but its fluffy cloud utopian benefits outweigh peoples freedoms
thus people voluntarity give over thir id.
(facebook is great example of Id/lifestory grabbing service, in exchange for some fluffy service/benefit)

physical conferences are also called seminars
virtual conferences are called webinars.

found it strange they not using the latest lingo

fractional reserve on LN. it has begun

https://www.bitrefill.com/buy/lightning-channel/

500,000 sats capacity You pay 0.000403 BTC
2,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.001341 BTC
4,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.002011 BTC
8,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.003753 BTC
16,000,000 sats capacity You pay 0.004825 BTC

until windfury understands a millisat is not a sat.(payment contract vs broadcast tx 2 different things)
until windfury understand a signed payment channel is not a signed bitcoin transaction
until windfury understand the concepts of factories, watchtowers.
until windfury understands that what happens inside a channel is not a blockchain
until windfury understands the LN is not bitcoin
until windfury understands LN is not community audited, regulated, consensused
until windfury understands LN does not have the byzantine gnerals solution
until windfury actually spends more time researching LN before promoting it.

then there is no point

wind fury. lets get back to basics.
imagine just the bitcoin protocol
if there was a bitcoin signed tx. but it is never broadcast, never relayed never enters anyones mempool...
is it a settled transaction paid in full?

if someone wrote you a cheque for $1billion. its signed. but has not ben submitted to the banks to be cleared.
is it a settled transaction paid in full?

knowing channels are just 2 party, no community oversight. where if you paid me $1 i would open a channel with you to credit you with 2btc channel. (obviously ur happy with the deal as its me at risk, not you)
and due to the privacy stuff. the routers dont blockchain check every nodes balance. they just htlc request 'can you handle 2btc' to which you would say yes. alot of things can get messed up in LN.

you really need to go research this stuff and not just spout out the utopian sales pitch

hey people
you lot do realise that agustin said about the bubble A YEAR AGO
right when there was a bubble spike in bitcoin

in short. old news. boring, outdated

LN still has issues and a risk

recently a stunt was done t buy pizza using LN and it only had a 10% success rate (1500 attempts, 150 successes)
the main issues with LN which wont be solved easily/ever are as follows:

the sender, router(middlemen) and destination ALL need to be online for a payment to flow
to have an increased chance of payment flow users have to split up their value into multiple channels and hope to find a route between them and the destination
even at the payment success, the funds are not real blockchain confirmed/settled balance so still risks of loss of value

a burn address is an obvious address thats set up with such a lengthy address that there is no way anyone created it via vanity or private key

EG
a burn address would look like
1Burn1nhellmofothereaintanykey

here is a couple real examples
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXUWLpVr
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1111111111111111111114olvt2

what i think the OP is doing is making a normal address and trying to cal it a burn address thinking people will throw coins into HIS address.

again doomad you are ignorant of facts

firstly
controversial fork of august 1st 2017(apartheid analogy) was not to do with the actual activating segwit.
it was about disconnecting opposition

secondly
controversial fork of august 1st 2017(apartheid analogy) was not requiring the community nodes to do a dang thing
it did not need 9500 nodes to manually disconnect opposition..
it did not need majority do something to cause the controversial network affecting (aparthied analogy) bilateral split

can you stop pretending it was a 'individual freedom' where you had the choice of going into your node and disconnecting who you wanted. it would have still happened even if general community did nothing.

the purpose was to FAKE a majority by diluting the network to then cause the network to appear like segwit was in full agreement.

this kind of immoral control stuff is exactly what the problems with digital money pre millenium. and how it took satoshi nakamoto to  come up with a byzantine solution.. but now there is no byzantine generals(plurals) and things are now just a single general. the whole point of blockchains and decntralisation is lost. because consensus has now ben bypassed

the real MORAL flow of a consensus should be as follows
1. feature proposed.
2. users adopt or not
3. if adoption reaches a threshold it activates. if it doesnt reach a threshold it doesnt activate
4. the threshold should be high enough or have a waiting period for any laggers to update after activation threshold before the network change so that it doesnt cause much orphan drama
5. if orphan drama is noticable after network change then disconnect opposing nodes that are causing orphans

NOT
1. feature proposed
2. disconnect opposing nodes even before activation, even when they are not causing any orphan drama. but done so just to get feature activated at any cost
3. less nodes on network but those remaining are showing as agreeing.. certain blocks are rejected by fibre even before reaching main relay stream thus again making it appear as full agreement

try to learn why the cypherpunks got excited about satoshis byzantine generals solution.
try to understand why bitcoin WAS revolutionary and WAS decentralised.
i know you advocate that you prefer core control and love to defend the core devs

but put the core dev defense hat away and instead think for a few minutes. what if the core devs and their partners done the same 2017 tactics, not for segwit, but for a feature that would have killed bitcoin. knowing general nodes were acting just as sheep. where cores tactics only needed their fibre and their dns seeds and not the community to activate

bitcoin 2015-19 is not the same ethos as bitcoin 2009-2015

oh and as for your silly rant about
"You have a preconceived notion that "threshold" always means 95% hardfork."
1. no where have i said its always was, is , should be 95%.
the reason i mention 95% is because that was the threshold of bip9. which CORE USED and which CORE had to IMMORALLY disconnect nodes to fake achieving.
2. i never set the threshold as 95% i didnt choose/code/invent, i had nothing to do with 95% so go do some research next time.
3. again show me any code that makes you think im some authoritarian that produced a high threshold... hint i didnt
4. so stop trying to make it out that i am the nasty controller and authoritarian. when the only people that coded immoral consensus bypassing crap were the core devs
5. also a true consensus if majority threshold was reached MORALLY, it would not even be a "hardfork".. which just shows you really need to do some research

"there is no vote"
well thats true now core have ways to bypass consensus

but bitcoin 2009-2017 was not always that way
2009-2015 consensus did function. there wer mutple brands on one network. none of them had mandated apartheid consensus bypassing code. it was a simpl reach a certain vote threshold and the proposed featur activates. if a feature didnt get the vote it wont activate

ya from 2015-2017 core slowly eroded away the consensus mechanism making nodes more like sheep with their "compatibility" consensus bypass stuff by not requiring nodes to upgrade to show opt-in/consent/vote to activate
and by knocking nodes opposing a core proposal off the network BEFORE a vote
so now that everything is core dev controlled (code, nodes, fibre, dns seeds) even a vote is not needed


so doomad by saying consensus(voting) doesnt exist, there is no thresholds needed anymore. no need for byzantine generals theory solution. thus admitting core are in control and decentralisation is dead.
(distribution vs decentralisation are 2 diffrent things)

and if doomad dares to flip flop to then say nothing gets activated unless majority vote to activate it.. then he is just flip flopping and being pedantic

doomad.. your flip flops are stupid
you say there is no vote and then say majority.(facepalm)

if there is no vote then there is no majority/threshold
dont then say there is consensus because you will ofcourse then say the network is permissionless and devs dont need consent

for months you keep flip flopping. atleast stick to one narrative
again stop flip flopping. stick to one narrative. admit core control the network. (no vote/no permission=nodes are just sheep)

me uncivil??
if 'flip flop' is uncivil, then look at your own insults.

my authoritarian??
sorry but you mean you and cores authoritarian
show some code i wrote that changed the network
show a brand/client software i wrote
show a brand which i own that has the same command/control of the network to do inflight upgrades and consensus bypasses that core done...
(hint you wont find any)

you really have no clue

1. CORE done some immoral and consensus bypassing practices. not me
2. you first said you 'didnt agree' but then said you agreed (hence flip flop)
3. again writing code anyone can do it. writing it on github, writing it on the thigh of a blonde woman, write it on a napkin
BUT thats where you get pedantic with your chosen wording. because:
a. when what they wrote is not a feature upgrade that uses consensus. but a network split to remove opposition to a future vote of an upgrade... thus faking that future vote... thts a whole different story

b. they didnt just write it. they implemented it in such a way that it didnt need the network to agree to it
c. you say it didnt need a vote. then say 'users are free to use it and it wont do anything unless user agreement'... yet reality is the DEVS didnt need users for the network split (pre feature vote). they just needed fibre and dns seeds(which they controlled.. not the community)
d. if you think a dev should have enough control to change a network without the community consent then you have already denounced decentralisation. already denounced the whole point of blockchains, byzantine generals solution, denounced
user indepeendance

so
if you think its ok for a dev to implement code through their commercial team of fibre, dns seeds and NYA.. imagine the event happened the same method. but the future vote after the apartheid (controversial fork of opposition) was a feature that would ruin bitcoin. such as code that makes UTXO time out after 2 days and give funds to mining pools. or changed the block reward. or to make block 'gigabytes by midnight'

would you be so willing to let devs just kick opposition off the network to activate such features after by faking consnsus agreement vote of those features.

also
if your ok saying the community dont get a say/vote/choice. and shouldnt.. and how you will defend devs control.
then your saying you will defend thee shepherd because the network is just sheep

in a different topic doomad show admiration for mandatory dated bans and was very loudly proud of their attempts to kill off 2x


mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should be disconnected 3 months BEFORE an activation of those nodes bips
mmhmm.. u agreed that nodes should disconnect BTC1  (Segwit2x) nodes 3 months before segwit2x activates

anyway. im done trying to translate ur flip flops. might be worth u doing some research on what bitcoin is all about and how bitcoin was invented to stay away from needing a "core"
and then maybe finally you can decide if ur a flip or a flop. and atleast stick with one narrative

..
as for writing code..
anyone can write code. they can write it on a napkin, a thigh of a blonde prostitute, write it in github. nothing stops anyon writing code.

but if those writing code have access to certain things where their code can cause network wide changes without the networks consent. then thats a different matter.

take the august 2017 events. it did not require 95% of the community to agree using a true open consensus.. it just required mattblue to add it to his fibre, thus the blocks that got relayed beyond fibre would all be missing old flags, thus faking agreement by simply not letting the mainnet community of nodes get opposing blocks
and as for node bans. adding certain stuff to the DNS seeds thus when nodes make connections they wont get a list of opposing nodes, thus have nothing to need to manually/individually disconnect

and if you want to deny that august first event didnt happen. check the IMMUTABLE blockchain
and if you want to deny that core struck first on august first. check the IMMUTABLE blockchain

core changed block flag/format at a certain block. and it wasnt for like 5 hours did the opposition react by getting their first block to start their own chain after cores actions

again core wrote the code. not some bitcoin AI. so please dont try now suggesting that some AI was involved or random users wrote the code or that the code just sprung out of nowhere. core wrote it. thy knew how to implement it and they used it to get segwit1x activated
and again it was not a case of ~9500 nodes agreeing.

the thing is. the network DID controversially fork

there was a controversial hard fork in summer 2017, to get rid of opposition. to then fake approval for segwit to activate after the controversy

if devs were smart they would have used the controversial date to include extra features that could only be included using a controversial fork

the whole 'compatibility' ruse was not about network security but as a ploy to try and get segwit activated without having to reach the ultimate consensus %

..
but anyway. here is some funny facts
1. Sipa (pieter wuille) the innovator/dev of segwit still to this day does not trust his bitcoin donations on segwit bech32 addresses
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/  - bottom right of page -  1NrohbDoPkARCGdjvtnXbwFLwoBH86pskX

2. BTCC, the biggest bitcoin mining pool that sponsored advocated and promoted sgwit as being the best thing ever, did not trust bitcoin blockrewards to be put on segwit bech32 addresses
13TEThZNnKPk34HYAuo1QqYMwDdjF3qeHx
even its last block (543,040) used legacy

it doesnt cram more transactions in. .
back in 2010 there was some math done and it was shown that bitcoins 1mb can fit 600k tx a day
9 years later and that benchmark has still not ben surpassed
also the wishy washy code of MISCOUNTING data does not make more transactions, it just fools a software rule into doing something. but at the hard drive storage of a full block of transaction data. the bytes per transaction of a segwit tx vs a legacy tx actually show a segwit tx uses slightly more bytes per tx

circle is just a brand name /subsidiary of DCG.co

once you see all the stuff DCG.co are involved in you will see that circle itself doesnt have to be a powerhouse/ big player / asset itself, but just a brand/arm of a larger body

firstly
segwit has not fixed malleability.
it created a new TX format that people can use to (at the time) show they cannot perform malleability.
a. people could continue to use old legacy tx formats and still malleate
b. recently due to new feature needs. core devs introduced a new sighash opcode that actually allows segwit tx's to malleate again..

secondly
the wishy washy code of witness scale factor. does not actually give more transaction capacity per real hard drive storage bytes of full block data.
stripped blocks do not contain signature data to validate a tx is truly authentic. thus having a node storing stripped data is not a guarantee to hold valid data or a ability to relay full data to real full nodes. thus no point being a node messing with stripped data

thirdly
the purpose of segwit is actually to change bitcoin to have a new gateway tx format that would allow features to be done that would suit another network (LN)

fourthly
segwit was conceived to edit bitcoin to give bitcoin a doorway to an alternative network.
the other network was not edited to be purely bitcoin functional
the esssence is to eventually persuade users to de-burden themselves of using the bitcoin network and use another network. thus reduce bitcoin networks utility

28terra hashes for $1200 is expensive?

dang
AMD-ATi GPU offers only upto 1gigahash, but charges $600+
if you want to mine without asics. it would cost you 28,000x $600 to GPU mine bitcoin

so is ATI's $16,800,000 for 28terrahash expensive..
or is asics $1200 for 28trrahash

i think ASICS are cheap

"Is it wrong or immoral to create code that causes a client to disconnect another client from the network if the features they propose are not compatible?  Should users be allowed to disconnect incompatible clients if they want to?  Or is this a way to cheat consensus and deprive the users running that client of the chance to express their support for a change in the rules?  And, in this morality judgement, should we consider whether replay protection is included in the the client being disconnected if that means users can be safeguarded from replay attacks? "

code that is set to automatically ban nodes/reject blocks of an opposing brand on a certain date, by strategic nodes(thus not requiring all users to agree to the plan.
and doing so BEFORE the a future feature the code writers wrote even activates. is immoral

by this i dont mean a independant user decides to manually disconnect its peer, whereby the peer is then free to connect to someone else. i mean where a BRAND produces code that would cause a network affecting disconnect.

as it is the same as apartheid. banning black people from voting in a election only allowing certain demographs to vote.
where by only white supermisists only get a vote in the later actual vote
and same goes for the 'compatible' nodes (analogy mixed race) which dont get a actual vote, they are handed a voting card but treated automatically as abstainers and not counted. thus again faking consensus while given the illusion of being part of the community still

banning nodes AFTER activation. to reduce orphans, fine.
but doing a mandated apartheid banning threat before consensus is reached is immoral

as for "hardfork" at 95%
if 95% are running software that accepts a feature to allow activation. those 95% wont see/feel a fork. the 5% not running will just stall out at a certain block number (stall, not fork)(2013 leveldb) or would if 'compatible' be handed stripped/mutated/edited data to atleast get some resemblance of still bing part of the blockchain, though at a downgraded position than before.

however doing things such as a controversial hard fork/threatening behaviour before activation of feature. purely to get/persuade people into activating a feature, where an actual hard fork larger community participants will be affected prior to activation. is not the spirit of consensus agreement.

as odolvlobo says below. alternative brand clients would be advantageous. and if a feature was truly beneficial to the community alternative clients could easily agree on it as they would see/want the advantages too.
obviously without community agreement obviously the feature needs to be worked on a bit more before being accepted.

by only having one brand that deems themselves authority/reference/core part of the network to just activate stuff under whatever policy they please leaves the network at risk to low quality code activations and trojans/tactics that go against the very purpose of bitcoins invention. thus having an array of diversity is beneficial. and single branding is actually more of a risk

i prefer my analogy better.
my dog does 1 poop a day and will live 12 years average. thats a rarity of 4380 poops ever to be avaiable.
that makes my dogs poop worth 4795x more then bitcoin. lets start the bids. who wants a bag of poop for $19m. any takers

rarity and perceived value based purely on rarity does not give something real value.
function/utility/purpose gives it value. and its the desire of multiple people wanting it that gives it value.

if people start seeing it as too expensive to handle, slow/heavy boring. and they find something else fastr/cheaper mor useful. then value dies of the first thing.
(myspace vs facebook, aol vs skype)

the main thing that can actually kill bitcoin and promote another coin is if merchants/exchanges start shifting away from bitcoin and promote altcoins. EG merchant shopping cart tools drop btc and only accept LTC

take 2017
imagine if all the NYA agreement srvices (bitpay, coinbase, multiple exchanges) decided to not support cores segwit thus not support bitcoin. and instead would only support litcoin
soon enough people holding bitcoin wont find services/merchants or ways to spend their btc. so btc would lose value. mining pools will realise they dont have exchanges to swap their btc for fiat. so drop their hashrate and pool hop to an altcoin that is exchange acceptable

in essense its not about 'faith' that bitcoin has value du to rarity or being first or having value just for sake of value. its actually UTILITY/SPENDABILITY

article errors
1. samson MOW(not chow). of previous fame. the mining competitor BTCC which is now dead due to BTCC failures of their own IPO to DCG

2. everyone know asics go through a QC testing phase of being run for a while before shipping. this is not new or exclusive to bitmain. even other manufacturers did it.

3. the cost of manufacturing asics is not that high. so they did not sell at a loss

4. insinuating TSMC sold all its BM1397 chips to apple,samsung etc is a complete falacy.
ASIC chips are designed for one purpose. you cant just take a BM1397 chip and give it to a phone company and then the phone company use it for another purpose.. ASICS are ASICs because they are ASICS
the BM1397 chip is a specific chip for bitmain mining bitcoins PoW. it does no other job, thus useless for cell phone companies

5. TSMC only making enough chips for 1000 rigs.. thats a pretty low minimum order.. even that sound suspiciously false