10 years = 5 for good behaviour
because he has been in detention centres in the last 5 years... im guessing he will be given a sentence of 'time served'

samson mow lost his job when BTCC went belly up with their IPO with DCG (sound familiar)
i think samson is actually talking about the only thing he does have knowledge of ... BTCC and his own job loss experience

need i forget to add some of the pools tagged as "antpool" are not actually managed by bitmain.
something samson has no clue about.

anyway
samson been saying about 'bitmain dead' since last summer..
yet q1+$500 q2+$500 q3-$500 = still+$500..... not -$500
yet they made s15.. since then
yet they made s17 since then
yet bitmain still has exahasha of hashrate. still has jihan working for them

wait didnt samson say jihan lost his job 6 months ago..
hang on.. 6 months later.. dang that is some long resignation period

P.S its not about credibility. its about DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH OUTSIDE YOUR ECHO CHAMBER OF BUDDIES
P.S you think bitcoin is limited to your lil group of friends. and im the only opposing voice.. then you really have locked yourself into a small room.

dont worry guys it already seems to be a flop.
even with a few notable big name actors its already being held back to just a few selected theatres on its release date.. so it looks like those that got advance viewing to designate if its worthy of big box office promotion think it doesnt deserve it

doo mad go flip flop on some social drama site

one day you say im exaggerating the next your saying i go too small
you even had one emotional day where you wanted to go on some emotional abuse rant that i did not include 1.5% number.
yet in the grand context of the topic the 1.5% is meaningless.
did you know visa can have deals of as little as 2pence+0.9%, thus on a microtransaction network of expecting to buy coffee-pizza £2-£10 the fee's would be under 12p no "hundreds of pounds"(based on your social work life experince which is not ven the same niche market LN would be used for)

how about just take things in the context of bitcoin and user expectation. and stop with your 'knitpick franky coz its franky'

you have had days where you have totally forgot what points you are trying to even make and contradict your own flip flops just to 'poke at franky'

you are not concerned one bit about bitcoin, you seem to prefer the social drama distractions.
so atleast take a step back before hitting the reply button and think before you write.

ask yourself are you about to write something about bitcoin or are you about to write something because it was posted by a certain user. if your initial reaction is certain user. take a step back away from the keyboard. and atleast do some research about the topic and atleast make it sound like your addressing the topic.

as for your circular fee's thought. if you actually run scenarios you would find out they aint easy and as straight forward as you think. because if another user routing through you finds he only needs 5 hops to get from him to destination but would need to route 7 hops to go through you the opposite direction. its not just your fee discount they are concerned with, its the other users in the route too(extra 2 hops).

oh and if you run scenarios like i told YOU about in regards to circular routing some users can abuse that so that they
make money out of you. i mentioned this months ago
i also mentioned to you many times to go research factories so dont go pretending i only talk about one vector of worse case scenerio. because what youll find is i actually talk about th realistic use scenario. and how theres flaws.

if i was to go full anal and display worse possible scenarios, even you would gasp
so ya it aint me saying users expect 0.000000000001.. i am the one saying users should not expect 12th decimal amounts, as a counter to other people who keep suggesting 12th decimal fee amounts and how they say there is no mechanism to push fee's up in ln, when actually there is.
its a real shame that some fools dont do research dont run scenarios and dont even appear to use LN yet are happy to try to promote a polished fully working concept, even when the devs themselves are shouting its flawed and risky and people lose funds and certain ln examples have only had 10% payment success rates

so please go actually do some research and run some scenarios

as for recent examples of some trying to promote cheap 12th decimal ln fee's in a positive manner

funny part
if you put in $60 to cover 20 coffee's at $3 each.. why oh why would you want others to:
a.route through you taking funds away from you meaning you cant yourself drink as many coffee's
b.use you as a route and incentivise them to use you. if its going to cost you to hav others using your funds
c. as for your post below... even in first link from muun... can you see the glaring flaw.
     c
a<   >b
     f
in the usual a-c-b scenario. fine
but to get C-b refilled using circular.. C has to get A F B permission to mess with their values
maybe A-F want to stay as they are. maybe F-B are happy as they are.. maybe B doesnt want to give anything back to C
its not straight forward as doomad suggests

mr Doo alot of flip flop Mad

just go run some scenario's. actually use LN. play around do tests. DOO something
if all you can Doo is get MAD then thats your issue.
but try not to make your social issues become the topic

1. Doo some research
2. Doo some Scenarios
3. stop getting MAD about social stuff in your head
4. learn about bitcoin/lightning
5. oh and $1 onchain and 10cent offchain for coffee is not 'exaggerations'/extremes
6. if your still going to refuse to learn about bitcoin and lightning, still going to not even run scenario's. then take your boredom to some social drama website about eastenders or coronation street, as that would suit you more to fill the gap in your life

meanwhile others will concentrate on bitcoin and related things, after all this is a bitcoin forum

seems you been reading too much reddit
fees dont need to rise onchain especially not this decade...
thats why the supply demand of the coin which causes the coins value to increase can keep things going for decades. EG if price of bitcoin 4 years ago is now 2x as high means that it still equals the same income even with a reward halving

reality is price vs 4 years ago is more then 2x so the value available for mining is more than the last halving.
thus no need to supplement the reward with fees as the reward is still high enough, the market:mining deflation can take care of itself and will do so for decades

th only reason for th whole 'fee' drama this decade is to pus an agenda that the bitcoin network aint any good. and the only reason its pushed as being not very good, is because devs have limited bitcoins utility/desire

de burdening the bitcoin network and pushing the bitcoin network fee up wont help miners either... think about it
.....
there are many mechanisms and limitations in LN that will push the LN fee's up.
just think about the whole economics of LN,
imagine it a route(hop) only has $60 in its channel and its going to cost that route(hop) $2 to close and reopen a new channel when the funds are depleted. why would they only charge $0.0000004 to allow someone elses $3 coffee to go through a router.
to the router. that $60 he has is like 20 payments of coffee they can allow. so knowing it will cost $2 to re-session the channel they will want to break even. so it ends up costing the initial guy 10cents just to cover the costs of channel re-sessions for 1 coffee

ask yourself, honestly would you allow routing using your value if it means you cant use your funds yourself, AND it cost you extra to allow it.

what will happen is a 'open market' where the route value available gets calculated so that it covers costs for the router

math formulae will come forth like such as:
if $60 in channel... $2 resession cost /60 = fee per $ routed =10cent LN fee per $1 required to be sent
if $600 in channel... $2 resession cost /600 = fee per $ routed =1cent LN fee per $1 required to be sent

so this is where hubs with large reserves between other hubs end up with the cheapest route fee's
but unless th initial guy wanting coffee has many channels to have the potential of having a multiple choice of routes, then it will find itself not paying super low prices of $0.0000004 per hop.
the only way to pay $0.0000004 per hop is if each router on the route had $X00k reserves to cover.. which wont be the case

..
in short. do some research, run some scenarios and you will see that paying 0.000000000001 (12th decimal(millisat)) per hop wont be a normal thing

the ETF of the OP is not a 'bitcoin etf'

its a ETF where the portfolio asset is not actually bitcoin
its a ETF where the portfolio asset is not actually anycoin/token

its a ETF where the portfolio asset is shares of other companies with loose ties to crypto

issues with ham radio LN
it takes many messages to complete the payment
the payment is just a handshake between 2 users and not a settled transaction.

also ham radio is not like phone calls where its just 1-to-1 private comms.. but broadcast out to the wide area of multiple listeners. utilising ham radio for LN seems odd

however that said
because ham radio is a 1-to-many comms (broadcast)
using it to send an ACTUAL bitcoin transaction out to the world where then anyone hearing it can then forward it on to a pool. would help.

but simply using up a ham radio frequency just for hand shaking payments between two specific users is not really using the transmission method wisely

the buying of cash vs core was just drama.
if people made is mistake either way, they just go to an exchange and swap it for the coin they preferred either way

and people can avoid the VISA ATM limit by walking into a bank branch and making a personal agreement with their attached bank direct to be able to handle more than the limit of an ATM..

but hey the dev's do love to pull strings especially with all the limitations they are putting into bolts
the wholepoint of bolts is a set of rules that the main nodes obide by to avoid fluctuations of disagreement.
yes bolts right now is just seen as a concept/policy. but if LN becomes popular nodes end up being more strictly following it or find out they get 'punished' because by not following it ends up in the predicament devs are seeing now where payment success rates are low due to route imbalances
so as for doomad saying options for future to allow opt out.. there are also options for future to make bolts more of a law than just a flimsy policy(the opposite of easy opt-out)

FTFY.. remember the 2009-2013 ethos of bitcoin 'virtually free tx' then suddenly devs decided certain groups needed fee's so they started messing with code to push a fe war.. dont expect LN to be 'virtually free' forever
also if you add it all up to have a reliable chance of successful payment you need to split your value over more than one channel = more than one set of open/close session costs. which under th assumption of a conservative $1 btc tx fee onchain.. for the 'buy coffee' scenario of LN if you add it all up and think about just 1 coffee a day for a fortnight. (14 coffees) and you needing say 5 channels for reliable routing ($10 open close(5x$1 open, 5x$1 close)) thats not mathematically lower than 10cent costs all in.
even if btc onchain fee's were 10 cents.. its still ends up after a fortnight all costs(many channels) added all in is much higher than 10cents
(and no, dont automatically think you only need 1 channel connected to starbucks.. coz starbucks wont want millions of users direct conncted to starbucks (DDoS risk) so they will set up layers of hubs and hops (much like websites use cloudflare) so expect to need to be a few hops away, meaning more chance each of those hops gtting de-funded/going offline, thus needing more than one channel to have a different route to starbucks should one route go down)

..
anyway the way i start to view the open/close costs is more like a membership fee to buy a channel. and many people have started using that mantra too of the cost to buy yourself into LN before actually getting to use it. they are especially using it in context of buying a channel via factories
let alone once in... some value is then locked off from being spendable by yourself so that further hits how much you can buy when you decide you want to put $60 towards LN. you WONT get to come out the other side after buying a $3 coffee with $56.90 nor can you just put in $3.10 and think you can get a $3 coffee pay the LN fe and get out all clear
...

lightning network has got limitations
did you know that LN dosnt want channels to be filled with thousands of dollars. they actually have code that limit value per channel. much like ATMS limit your spend per day.
the requirement of multiple channels because of issues that just running a singl channel has limitations
as for technology limitations. there are many. its why the 'hop' model has issues. and why hub and factories and other models are then developed. but even they dont allow unlimited use

bitcoin was the system of offering savings. but the devs took out them mechanisms. and are now trying all strategies they can to make bitcoin sound bad as a payment method just to promote another network.
and yes that included THEM advertising LN as a way to make income. THEY even talked about how mining pools can supplement their income by being LN nodes.(hint all THEIR words... not mine)

but hey your more interested in social drama insults of a username 'franky1' then you are of actually researching bitcoin things just check out all your posts with insults. vs posts talking about bitcoin.

once you realise you are insulting a username that has no birth certificate, you will maybe realise your insults are empty. and that you are wasting your time getting so emotional. then i hope you spend more time researching bitcoin, understanding bitcoin and maybe eventually caring about bitcoin

....
actually i was the one telling people that they would need to do 100k transactions to get 4cents.

your the one happy to make bitcoin become unusable and have LN as the gateway away from the stifled bitcoin
your the one that only thinks 1mb or 1 gigabyte. for years i have said there are many ways to scale bitcoin, that DO NOT involve gigabytes by midnight.
your the one that thinks and promotes bitcoin as eventually leading to server required blockchain management. yet i was the one saying actually its only $200 to be a node and stats show that incremental growth is not a problem...

you seem to flip flop soo much your forgetting which narrative you have personally promoted..

oh and as for me not mentioning the 1.5% in addition to $0.10.. because on a coffee/microtransaction. 1.5% is negligable and UNIMPORTANT
but its you that seem to go to extremes of talking up the 1.5% to extreme numbers.
your words "hundreds of dollars" when you explained how you view 1.5%
seems you dont understand the purpose of LN was for microtransaction meaning the expectations of bitcoin 2009-2015 were sub 10cents. and the expectations of LN are meant to be sub 10cents.. so i have no clue why your getting emotional in regards to small 1.5% of insignificant amount thus not even worth mentioning

oh and i must add.. if you did actually work for a call centre which each employee does thousands of £ a day.. then your working either in a fak company you made up, or for a company that has no clue about its own costs. if it has not negociated its transaction fee's down to 2p+0.7% then the company you supposedly work for deserves staff like you working for it.
but thats beside the point..

point being 10pense/cent fee per transaction or less is the average expectation. and so people like you saying visa charging over 10pence/cent is bad.. but charging for bitcoiners $1 is good is YOUR FLAW and your flip flop

 
oh and as for me wanting bitcoin scaling.. there are again many ways of achieving it. im emphasising and repeating it. because its you that jumps to the "big blocker" mantra of exaggeration

now go play your social flip flops elsewhere. or atleast remember your flip flops and stick with one narrative
because you dug yourself a hole mis understanding my subtle point about $200 to run a node.. and now ur just digging yourself a bigger hole with your insults and flip flops.

^ cha ching, this guy gets it
.com sounds too commercial.. .org sounds more open sourcy. so when things moved forward things favoured the 'org' representation

trend ANALS
not analysts.. just anals..
are guys that have no clue about the reasons of previous movements. have no knowledge. and just draw lines at any angle they please and then try to buzzword the line like its significant.
they are anals.. (a-holes)

technical analysts know why previous things happen. they investigate causes and effects, they see patterns based on events and actual triggers.
EG the october 2013 rise was due to the flip between GPU and ASICS.
trend anals automatically think prices are gonna shift like october 2013 did, simply because they seen it happen on a price chart.
technical analysts would see the trigger was hashrate caused and then look for other hashrate events.

as for the november 2017. that was a large investor buy up due to contracts of segwit activation being met so tranches of coins needed to be bought up to fulfil contracts.
the november 2018 slump was due partially due to the reaction of the october hashrate drop and also a investment contractual sell off of those coins held for exactly a year since the november 2017 buy-up jump

these things are not things u learn just by drawing a line on a price chart but actually investigating real word events that trigger price movements and human decision to buy/sell

the s15 are already in and circling the 45exa. but next is the yet to be released s17 which hopefully will push up the hashrate as the cost/efficiently is hopefully going to be noticeably different to the s9-s15 range of october 2018-march 2019

as for the ETF
the ETF will need tens to hundreds of thousands of coins to have big enough baskets to meet minimum share demand.. current market volume is less.. its actually small amounts of 500-5000 coins being rinsed and repeated in day trades. so sucking up more than 5000 coins will affect the markets over lengthier periods of time.
though the market affecting mining.. yea some hobby miners that pool jump will stop mining altcoins and jump to bitcoin. but thats a small like 5%.
i see the ETF explosion of multiple companies supporting the market rise more than the ETF causing a hashrate rise.
but in the interim of the ETF explosion. knowing it takes weeks to buy new asics, deliver them and that such. the ETF trigger will be more dramatic up and down before it settles to new underlying support when asics move in.

this is why i prefer watching the hashrate rise first as a good sign of underlying support. and not care so much about short term market drama of ups and downs

my 2 main triggers for a SUPPORTED and sustainable rise are
1. hashrate rise (increase of mining costs means people less likely to sell for less as its not profitable to do so
2. once the first ETF is successful(those already hoarding coins) the next gen of ETF applications using that precedence as a success template will need to buy up thousands of coins to create their ETF baskets.

neither of which is happening just yet so any movement of price right now, during non-events is just speculative ups and downs without anything underlying to support a need to keep it up

blah blah blah.. drawing lines on charts based purely on previous lines on charts.... supports no logic.

i see no push on acquisition costs of bitcoin (mining) to assume that it will snowball to raise the sell/buy rate support on the market
i see no massive drama event, nor any big company needing to consistently buy bitcoin.

so i dont see big reasons for any sustainable growth yet. all i see is just empty speculation meaning if there was a price spike, expect a price correction after

will the TREND ANALS stop trying to be technical analysts

in the coming years satoshis will lose there importance.
there is already talk due to the foolishness of LN tokens to introduce an extra 4 decimals into the bitcoin protocol aswell, to try to make the bitcoin networks tx unit of measure resemble the pegged tokens that LN uses. (again more attempts to make the separate network called LN pretend to be cryptocurrency-esq by making bitcoin change to be more LN IOU token-esq, yet again)

this is why a few years back when it was becoming a thing that 100 sats(a bit) may become an important measure (allowing for 100 divisions of such). but those with a certain roadmap deemed it less important as they knew they would be messing with the unit of measure to become more than 100,000,000 per btc eventually.

so it may be too early/late to try branding a 'satoshi'

looking at the chart
going back for years. there was a nice healthy smooth curve increase.. PRE SEGWIT

but dated august 1st 2017 was the LOWEST tx count of 2017 with under 140k tx a day
then the numbers went all over the place.
including when segwits bech32 tx format got added in spring 2018
tx counts sent from 300k down to ~200k a day

..
just imagine that smooth curve of early 2017 continuing if the whole segwit stuff didnt flap around. and instead there was just a steady increment of legacy blocksize

even as far back as 2010. they calculated using bitcoin as a cash payment meaning lean 1 in 2 out (1 out for destination, 1 out for change) would allow 7tx/s

this 7tx/s has been a known number for 9 years. it equates to 600k tx a day

even with all the "scaling" blah that devs pretend to have done over the last 9 years.. i dont think 285k tx a day is something to be excited about, especially 9 years later

bitcoin is 10 years old and still only 3.5tx/s

not allowing legacy transactions to surpass 1mb
hiding segwit data outside the 1mb to pretend byte per tx is lower when its just miscounted by wishy washy code and witness scale factor bull crap
and all the new features bloating the average tx size from ~250bytes to now being around 500bytes has not allowed more utility but less.
and whats coming next, deburden bitcoin of more utility so that people transact on other networks, thus less tx per day. thus ofcourse with pools eventually in years wanting more fee's will find they will charge users more per transaction.. further impeding bitcoin utility in favour of deburdening people away from bitcoin and instead populate and promoting other networks