might be worth you checking on that, you'll be shocked by what you find. LN is multisig.
even devs themselves have admitted they lost funds, and their the ones coding it
there are many ways a user can lose value in LN due to others.

what is more then likely is the middleman(fold) has reserves and bought alot of dominos giftcards at discount. and its fold that accepts LN and then pays dominos using giftcard. meaning fold uses the "50% off highest size" and has a further 5-10% off due to giftcard deals so is only really paying 40% of the price and then charging 95% to customers.

real funny thing is. due to the delivery time and cooking delay. there is no actual need for "instant payment"

the real niche LN would see is gambling sites and arbitraging between exchanges. .. you know, services where you find people using every day and needing to move funds in seconds... not a once a week treat that takes 30-60mins delivery

but hey, overhyping and playing around with how involved companies are. and faking big names involvement seem to be the foolish game of gimmickery that gets played out. which doesnt wash with many people and actually makes smart people less inclined to get involved

if only people stuck with the real events and not overhype/twist how involved a company is, including being upfront about flaws. then more people would see the benefits and atleast know the risks/issues to be well informed.

calvin ayre isnt just some dude that has some passing independent thought about craig. calvin has craig mentioned in calvins twitter avatar description/bio. so it obvious their more than joined at the hip

domino' does not accept bitcoin or LN

a middleman service called Fold does
true title should be. users can buy pizza via...

with true bitcoin. YOU own the value. if you dont write the private key into a Will or have a way to let relatives have access should you pass away then yea. you take the value with you to the grave as no one will be able to touch it.
and thats the point. no other party accesses it unless you authorise them to. making true bitcoin a good true asset. (only you can own and handle it)

LN however, due to counterparty(multisig) locks lessens your ownership rights as your locking the value into a multisig with someone else. downside is that you start needing trust that they wont mess/blackmail/unfairly influence the ownership.

LN is not bitcoin. LN is a separate network for multiple coins and is infact more messy then people think.
but hey. if you shout bitcoin loud enough when promoting other networks and commercial services you surely will get lots of people talking about it and overhyping it as the nextbig thing even if its not strictly a thing that adds unique functionality to bitcoin

even LN devs see and shout out warnings for people not to lock large amounts up, to then play around in LN. mainly stick to a grocery shop amount you wont mind losing, accept its not a sole control, expect delays due to routing issues(users offline/under funded).
here is one main LN dev say it himself at a meeting with other LN devs.
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

but hey commercial services will continue the overhype, over promote game of throwing buzzwords around to generate interest in their commercial ventures.
meanwhile true bitcoin remains stifled and un innovated for the last few years. and still sits below the 600k transaction count per day(7tx/s) number. so many that see behind the over optimism game of commercial crap are still wondering when true bitcoin innovation, scaling and growth will occur. as 2015-2020 seems to just be drama and debate and stall tactics just to promote other networks/commercial services

actually luke JR in late 2015 proposed segwit2mb could activate without splitting the network.
Luke then backed out and pretended he was nothing more than a insignificant janitor/chimnet swep very early 2016 and could not possible code segwit2mb into core.

then came the segwit1x and they tried that in november 2016 hoping to activate by christmas 2016.. yet by spring 2017 it only got 35%, because it was only segwit1x. not the segwit2mb(2015 agreement)

what came next was to ensight some social discord with a 3 card shuffle trick.
the bip148 did actually occur on august first. the blockchain itself can attest to that.
but your explanation of it is wrong.
bip148 is about mandating that hashrate flag approval for segwit1x or find themselves thrown off the network on august first.
meaning 148 was a AT REAL CODE LEVEL a controversial hardfork(pre activation mandated approval or else) to fake approval for segwit1x (but social dramatised as a 'user assisted soft fork'... they even made hats to hide the real controversy it caused)

another of the card tricks was the investors paying luke and samson mow and others to get segwit active. falsely offered a segwit2x(not segwit2mb). this was the NYA where they employed BLOQ devs to write a client.. but this was not a real proposal to get 2x active, but a ploy to get 1x active by saying 2x would only activate later if 1x gets activation first.

the other card trick was bitcoin cash. as the alternative choice network to funnel x1 opposers off the network, making 1x opposers feel they had somewhere to go to rather than fight off 1x.

if you follow the portfolio of DCG and see blockstream, bloq, NYA agreed parties, and yes even ver, were all tied togther.. youll see the 3 card shuffle that got 1x activated ven though there was 35%-65% controversy over it.

anyway. moving on. years later bitcoin scaling hasnt really happened we are stil below the 600k transactions a day threshold(7tx/s) and it seems all the devs and the DCG portfolio care about now is the commercialisation of LN to give investors returns on investment. while trying to 'deburden' bitcoin of utility.

anyway, i think that this social drama of lukes this week is just a psy-op of reverse psychology to later say that onchain scaling cant happen because luke proved that devs have no power.. yet. we all know that now core is in power. that if devs were serious about something they could easily pull the pin and activate whatever they like.. as shown august 2017

technically there is a tulip trust(legal paper, but no financial value)
for a few years now the aussie government and a few private firm now know its as empty of value as a notepad file of public keys. hense why CW fled australia.

what truly makes many peoples blood boil is how CW, knowing how sick and near end of life the notary was and knew the notary would not be around by 2020 to have to explain reasons for formalising a empty of value trust.. CW proceeded in using him to formalise the empty trust.

which just shows the depths CW would go to to scam being rich and con not just private firms but the aussie government.
but anyways no point waiting to 2020. CW has no more cards up his sleave. so the only magic he can now do is fizzle out into obscurity and we just stop trying to reference him in regards to anything bitcoin related, because the truth is he aint relevant

best let the FIAT industry handle his scammy shinanigans and let it become news about him scamming FIAT. rather than bing bitcoin negative issue

my coins are spread over many addresses so fortunately i do not have to disclose the actual amounts (i got no interest in being spammed by people wanting to kiss my ass like some rich uncle would get around the time they write their Will)
but 2012 was a good year to enter the bitcoin ecosystem for me (circa $6 per coin at the time)

id say many involved pre 2013 most definitely did get a nice hoard of bitcoins.
if you exclude the 'top 100' richlist addresses as those are majority exchanges/custodians/mining pools anyways, you end up seeing there are some addresses that still hoard coins from over half a decade ago

although trying to get an actual % / number of people is something no one will be able to give a useful number of

im starting to think Lukes bip is not and was never a viable bip. but just some social drama to try averting peoples eyes and minds away from scaling bitcoin up. by using a fake bip to make people only talk about consequences of scaling down/up. to just delay scaling up.

(EG family wants to expand and have more kids. parent then drops in the abortion option distraction comment. and suddenly discussion moves to the pros and cons of abortion and how getting pregnant unplanned then becomes a sensative subject that should not be treated lightly.. end result dont have more kids due to abortion argument causing people to rethink)

i beleive it was never intended to become actual code that would be added to a core release. and as such, that by not being added. dev's can then pretend that devs are powerless janitors and unable to code things into core. thus not able to scale UP bitcoin.

thus being another psy-op bait and switch game to distract and play games. while the devs continue coding their roadmap and pretend they cant code anything else but their roadmap

(typical flip flop maneuver.. one minute they are authority in regards to roadmap. but only chimney sweeps(janitors) in regards to non roadmap bips) just like their 2016 backsteps

ill also say the same thing to you
craig wright has never had an original bitcoin independant thought, ever. he just grabs them from other people.
craig wright was never bitcoin involved to any notible high degre. nor worthy of even being treated as a influencer

best to just let him fade away into obscurity and let the courts sort him out and slap him with a wet fish

Mr drama queen.
my reply was that i recognised my own words and treated ashraf226 quoting my words and the tears as some subtle face palm . not agreement....
in relation to what i believed was ashraf226 thinking i follow CW.(because CW also says that.. )
(learn subtly.. oh and it was tears not smiles. so again, ill say it to you.. i did not assume agreement.. i noticed the opposite than agreement..)

again it was nothing about ashraf226 himself agreeing with me. it was actually about me recognising the subtle hint that he facepalming me and feels i must be sharing an opinion with CW.. which is something you yourself also wrongly supposed think too. due to CW saying similar stuff

if you done research you would know the actual source of the mindset.. oh wait... my post even clarified it.. yet you didnt even get that hint

anyway
so i replied in the manner to clarify that the mindset of home users bottlenecking the network is not a concept/idea of CW..

i was pre-empting the obvious subtle facepalm rebuttle... thus its you that didnt pick up on the subtlety of why ashraf226 facepalmed my words

so again for clear emphasis
the home users botleneck the network is not an idea made in 2015+ by CW,
anyone also agreeing with such should not then be pigeon holed into the 2015+ CW drama

the home users bottleneck the network is an idea by the real bitcoin inventor(satoshi, not CW) circa 2008-2010
CW only took on the concept purely because of CW wanted to pretend to be satoshi. however CW real independant thoughts actually counter satoshis

so dismissing the content of home users bottleneck the network purely because CW used it years later . is the foolish thing. because that just makes lame excuses to dismiss anything satoshi ever felt/thought.. if then years later a scammer called CW then quotes it.

it is also foolish to pigeon hole people as CW followers, even though, if you do research the thoughts were not even CW's
again for emphasis.. when the original source of what people follow was not even CW
admit it doomad.. you foolishly want to pigeon hole me into CW follower. but you have not done the research

dont you get it yet. CW is not even making the concepts he is grabbing them from others.
wake up and do the research

LN is a separat network for multiple coins.
it is not a bitcoin feature.
the secret is in what does N stand for.
its not an exclusive feature to make bitcoin more unique than other coins. its something other coins will have access to aswell

LN was not created to fit bitcoin needs
bitcoin was altered to fit LN's needs.(so was litecoin, vertcoin and others)

as analogies go LN is better to be called thunderdome(mad max)
'2 may enter 1 may leave'
(funds are locked into counterparty controled multisigs(2 may enter))
(channels only really close when one counterparty has run out of funds(1 may leave))

bitcoiners lock up their bitcoins. other users lock up their litecoins, vertcoins.
people transact using unconfirmed 12 decimal tokens with other people that need to be online to accept payment(2flaws)

and in the end if bitcoins network is bottlenecked due to lack of blockspace. and also fee's are high.
those that want to exit the 12 decimal token payment system and try to unlock independent 8 decimal true value, end up choosing the cheaper fee, faster confirm, more accessible altcoins. or staying in the vaulted system(research factories)

meanwhile LN is not a blockchain, not as decentralised, not immutable, no guarantee of confirmation at settle. and other flaws that devs happily admit to
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

do you really think bitcoin would retain its few $k market price if people are selling them for altcoins.
do you really think bitcoin would retain its few $k market price if no one is retaining bitcoin but prefering altcoins

taking the "burden" off the network.. is a lame excuse for LN. a "burden" created by devs by halting BITCOIN scaling

and for those that want to continue to think LN payments are true bitcoin payments.
write someone a cheque. sign it and hand it to them. let them hold it for a month and pretend you paid them and its all job done.
then watch when they try to settle the cheque and it does not clear(bitcoin doesnt confirm to a blockchain).. i guarantee you that you still owe that person money.. you cannot say that you dont owe that person anything.
LN is an IOU system until the funds are confirmed.
much like zero confirms. its not a real payment until its confirmed

blockweight consensus rule is 4,000,000 witness scale factor /4 (base block 1mb weight 4mb)
average blocks real utility is ~ 1,200,000 (not all transactions are segwit so a full 1mb base is only garnering a 0.2mb extra weight)

by luke wanting (actual blocks) utilised to be just 600,000 . at current utility that would make the base block around 0.5mb.
which if he then tries to push segwit adoption up afterwards by forcing his nodes to only use wallets of segwit based address formats. would push the base block to be ~300,000

luke is trying to bypass the consensus rule by not changing the consensus (4mb) but just controversially reject blocks that produce blocks of 600kb

luke method of doing such a fork is super ugly. controversial and foolish.

its not even good coding practice.. nor utility practical
..
seems lukes mindset is maybe too stuck in the push bitcoin utility down, deburden bitcoin of utility by getting people to use commercial service networks like LN.
oh the august deadlines are not coincidence. the investors of blockstream need to start getting repaid ASAP so they would wanna see LN's commercialised income stream adoption rise for the investors to get some returns

^
mindset above is of the same mindset as real bitcoin inventor circa 2008-2010.(satoshi, NOT craig)
this is not a mindset of cw's creation... but craig to pretend he was the inventor adopted this mindset to push his fake ploy that he was the creator.

when others agree with the idea that slow connections=bottlenecks, does not make the idea wrong simply because cw now quotes it. it also does not mean people are following craig if they are following the slow internet=bottleneck..
but should be realised that the content has merit(original source). but that craig is only saying it purely from a point of view of 'i am satoshi'.. it still does not make the content wrong. but just makes craig a ass hat for trying to claim the mindset as his own


if your a home user with slow internet dont try being a node with hundreds of connections. as its like trying to be a torrent seed that is only offering independent users a 0.005kb/s datastream. its far better to only have 1-2 connections to cause less bottlenecking for others. thus offering a 0.25-0.5 datastream instead of 0.005
attempting to up the node connections to be helpful does do the opposite. because the recipients are not getting best connectivity.
also du to node drops due to low offering.. a slow internet user then needs to establish new connections and then send out the exact same data to new nodes AGAIN and again and again. thus not even helping the slow internet users own bandwidth utility.
its like someone with a stutter. its far better to talk to only a couple people and concentrate your speach on 2 people to keep a good conversation. than to try talking to 100's of people who will get bored of waiting for the completion of a sentance, walk off and the guy stuttering then has to restart with new people. it does not help the listeners. and the guy stuttering ends up repeating self more often then needed, further infuriating himself due to his limited ability. thus helping no one

think about it logically.. even the real bitcoin creator pointed this out in 2009-2010(again real bitcoin creator, not cw)
imagine 8 slow internet users of 0.5mb/s had 100 node connectivity for seeding out data.
another node that connected to those 8 slow internet users would get 8 connections of only 0.005(0.04 combined)

now imagine the 8 slow internet users only allowed 2 nodes each
another node that connected to 8 slow internet users would get 8 connections of 0.25(2mb combined)

also it actually helps the slow internet user to:
be a reliable seeder for others
to not have connected nodes drop them meaning they retain connections
to not have to get repeat drops which means not have to repeatedly send the same data
which reduces the bandwidth usage the slower user actually uses, thus helps themselves and their connected peers.
.. also those not personally needing to verify hundreds of transactions a day add latency, so normlly best to have 100,000 nodes that need high transaction verification needs. than have home users that dont need high transaction verification needs just being there for the sake of being there

but again
just because craig says it in 2015+ does not mean the original idea from the original source of 2008-10 is wrong. and does not mean others who say it are also wrong. because the reality is that idea is not of craigs invention..
though there are some people out there that try to discredit real idea's, simply due to craig quoting the idea. even if its not craigs idea in the first place

bitcoin has authorities...
Gmax claiming to be an authority... is the exact problem that proves bitcoin centralisation.. while then saying that if people dont respect him, the disrespectful should be treated as clueless abusive choir preachers...

dang gmax, high ego. and admitting bitcoin is centralised in one sentance.
kinda the whole reason to actually lose respect for you


anyway craig wright is just a scammer playing with an altcoin that he didnt even write himself. he deserves no fame and should just fizzle out into obscurity. cw has nothing to do with bitcoin.
 im surprised how such an 'authority' deems cw such a threat to even get emotional about cw drama.

regulations, if you wash away the buzzwords is this in simplicity:
1. gives a business a shiny sherrifs badge to look professional and an authority of trust. while letting the business police its customers
2. it allows businesses to get away with certain civil crimes by letting them push the crime onto someone else
3. it does not allow a customer to police a business. even though the business is the one holding the funds/product/asset of the customer

regulating bitcoin does not help decentralised independent people. it just helps make businesses and custodians look professional while hindering users utility.

regulations should not be promoted. but instead at worse consumer protections should be promoted whereby allowing independent people to police the custodians/businesses that take funds of users.

this is sometimes where some people mis interpret and start to think the only way to innovate and have a strong project is to use forks to push out the weak idea's and then keep only the strong idea's as a single project under one teams control.

to insinuate that what you say means that bitcoin needs one lead team IS centralising.

the whole concept and revolution of 2009's invention is that different people do not NEED to split off when an idea is promoted.. instead the true "honest node" consensus is that changes to rules simply do no occur unless there is diverse agreement that the change is beneficial to the majority on the network.. without splitting up the network.

research byzantine generals.

so those trying to insinuate the only way to upgrade a network is to fork away opposers is literally abusing the bitcoins prime purpose of consensus.

yes people can make as many altcoins as they like. if they want to make their own altcoin. no one is forced to stay. but in th same breathe no one should ever be forced to leave before an upgrade purely to fake a majority.

that means a certain team should not get to control bitcoin and be ultimate lead by forking off opposers, forcing people off bitcoin just so one group gets their way is not consensus nor is it being a honest node majority.

if a certain team proposes an idea. and there is no HONEST NODE majority.. then the upgrade does not occur no harm no foul.. obviously the idea was not good enough... end of story move on

the proposer should then listen to the community, figure out the objections and find a solution that a majority would settle for.

if your mindset is still foolishly thinking bitcoin needs a leader and forks are needed and control from a central group is needed then please research the byzantine generals issue and the things that bitcoin solved when it was invented in 2009,, before trying to rebutt to insinuate that bitcoin can only function centrally via forking out opposing views

regulations and single lead team reference clients goes against the whole point of bitcoin.

if you want scam safety. try getting politics of countries(not crypto) to actually build laws that make it easier for users to sue/charge a scammer.
you dont need to regulate the currency/network. you need to make legal recourse in a courtroom easier to access for victims, and then education about self awareness, due diligence to help prevention of scams/theft.
regulations dont do either. but consumer protections does

did you even read the details of the tulip trust.

heres the revelation.
the tulip trust holds only PUBLIC KEYS which were put into a notepad file. and then notorised into a fund.
NO PRIVATE KEYS

as your post above proves he just grabbed random early adoptor keys. again PUBLIC KEYS
the tulip trust has NO PRIVATE KEYS

so no point waiting for 2020.
the tulip trust has been ripped apart as a scam hense why when craig used the tulip trust as collateral. it led to craig getting into alot of trouble with the aussie government after they done their checks.

all craig wright is doing now, because he cannot provide private keys. is to try social drama stuff to get his face on as many media publishings as possible and hope using the media publishing as proof of ID, to then hope to use that as proof of ownership (DUMB-ASS)

until then he is trying lots of tricks to gather funds to hope to ponzi his way out of big trouble (repay the big debts) and try to mitigate trouble by leaving only small holders too afraid to sue him left empty handed.

because the IP feature was just about a different way to get a bitcoin address from someone, it was not a big NEEDED thing. but opened up nodes to trojans, viruses hackers, man in middle, and ofcourse DDoS attacks so benefit vs problems.. weighed more into the problems direction. so was disabled

anyway moving onto to adam back...
dang.. seems like adamback has no clue
1. there actually was an address that satoshi sent the funds to hal
1Q2TWHE3GMdB6BZKafqwxXtWAWgFt5Jvm3

2. a TCPIP connection payment is just a standard bitcoin payment. seems he dosnt know the basics yet CEO's a company of dozens of developers..

then. in the replies section. he then reveals the issues of connecting to ip addresses to request data... and if you read it and then look at his companies invention known as LN . it, yep LN has that same fatal flaw.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1087151635510583296
"It's not very good:
- recipient has to be online (vs send to address recipient offline)
- IP address could change (many ISPs dynamic IP)
- recipient could have firewall or NAT (unreachable)
- TCP hijack could send funds to someone else (intercept/reroute)
- as no authentication"