i know you love your satire, but even you been round long enough to know of the dynamics of the market:mining

people want to find the cheapest way to obtain bitcoin. either on the market or by mining it.
when its cheap to mine it, the price goes down becasue people mine it, and if profitable they sell some on the market.
when its expensive to mine it, people buy it and the price goes up

even hal finney knew this back in his day, and it still applies today
yes there is also a speculation layer that plays out temporary changes. but the general long term view of the market:mining dynamic applies

thats why i am not into trent anals that just look at the market price and dont understand the underlying layers of what bitcoin is and utility/function/technology that builds up its value. by saying the price only moves because the price moves is basically saying bitcoin is backed/utilitised by nothing

fiat:
fiat is created at ZERO cost. thus it has a ZERO base cost layer to its value(gold backing died decades ago)
its created due to debt. when someone signs a credit agreement/promissory notes (credit cards/mortgage agreements,government bonds). the banks create new fiat. and then the recipient has to get other fiat PLUS interest to give back to the bank. this creates an endless loop of zero win for the public and the only winners are banks

banks are also the major custodians(holders/controllers) of the publics fiat. so even though people think they 'own' fiat. the banks are the real ones that both created it, holding it for people, AND making people pay banks back for that..

fiat only has utility due to popularity, sparked off by bankers and then pushed further by bankers making lawmakers ensure fiat remains viable. (such as taxes needing to be paid in fiat, court fines and minimum wage measured in such)

with other currencies emerging. all that pins fiat to remaining a utility is the laws that protect it from becoming useless.
(if public services were no longer paid via tax treasuries but made privatised, than fiat would lose control of utility benefit)

imagine if state schools, trash collection and road maintenance became self funded by people buying cryptocurrency of that service

..
bitcoin:
unlike other altcoins that are PoS(zero value). bitcoin is created using actual electric and calculations that are complex and actually cost people money to create bitcoin. so bitcoin has an underlying value which other coins do not.
bitcoin has so far remained the main popular coin to be used by a multitude of different services so it has a large utility value too.

when you buy bitcoin, you are not then signing contracts to be in any endless loop of having to pay back, or pay into something. once you have it. its your end of. thats why its an asset.
bitcoin does no need laws to push/force utility. its a open free decision. thus offers many things that fiat does not, while also offering an escape of the burden of the fiat environment.

which is why LN has flaws. and is to be treated as an IOU
its like writing a cheque that wont clear.
you cant then say you no longer owe someone something if the cheque doesnt clear, simply by handing over uncleared cheques

without using a blockchain to confirm transactions at the time of payment...your in a area of zero confirmationed/uncleared cheques environment.
even the LN devs admit to that issue.
LN is a zero confirm IOU environment and no way to guarantee a confirmation later

hense why i prefer to want ONCHAIN decentralisated innovation while certain people only want to ruin bitcoins network in a greedy method to trying to push for offchain unimmutible unconfirmed, flawed networks. emphasis on greed

core only had 35% vote. so they should have stopped and walked away with tail between its legs under their segwitx1

but instead they done a contentious fork to push out th opposition to then fake a majority.. and im using YOUR words so you cant later deny it happenend like you usually do with your flip flops of social distraction

permissionless network means you want users to have no say. no permission to stop devs.
the DEVS wrote the code of the mandate they even wrote the compatibility so that it bypasses true consensus.
it was not a user decision.
you kep saying it yourself that you hate the idea of devs needing user permission. you keep saying you love the idea for devs to just write code and activate it without permission
atleast wake up to your own flip flops and decide if you want to stick with a flip narrative or a flop narrative and stick with one

anyways thats you wanting a dictatorship

LEARN consensus
learn byzantine generals issue

learn how bitcoin became a innovation which core has now eroded away and made into their centralist network with only 'distribution'.. not decentralisation

after months and months. you keep on denying the same debate
that the main dev team instigated a ploy to push proper full nodes that were not following core off the network

you have become very boring now.
as for the second part of your post. you then flip flop to admit it. thus undoing your hard work of denying such.
so just stick with a flop or a flop.

gmax admitted he likes the idea of pushing opposers off the network
luke JR admits to being involved in it. there is no point defending them as if they had no part when they happily admit it.

atleast do your research on the falsality your trying to defend. also dont pretend that non-dev users got a choice in the mandate.. as it was all 'compatible' meaning no opt-in required.
as for the opt-out option. it was not a opt out to prevent activation. it was a opt out of the network.
learn the word 'mandated'


you need to learn what consensus is and why it made bitcoin what it was.
true consensus is not about 'forks' sorting it out. consensus is about if there is no agreement. nothing happens. no activation

learn how it solved the byzantine generals issue and how the core devs have literally broken down the consensus mechanism by bypassing it. and are now trying to say blockchains dont work
if you want to defend devs that dont care about bitcoin or the blockchain technology then go play around on normal database forums

but if you care about bitcoin and blockchains will you please do your research and drop your broken record. as your defending nothing by holding onto your echo chamber

any way.
you have become someone that does not care about bitcoin and you just want a social drama distraction.
so go watch some eastenders and be content with that social drama

devs did make the decisions.

code didnt write itself. so users are only using code that devs create. thus users have limited decisions.
secondly devs implemented code in a way to throw opposers off the network. again this isnt some magic or some AI. its code wrote by devs

might be worth you talking to some devs and actually realise the devs you FAIL to defend are happy to admit their actions. which is where you are failing most.
all you seem to want to do is defend and kiss a devs ass, but you fail to realise that what you defending doesnt ned defending because devs are happy to admit their roadmap and plan

but hey. its obvious you dont want diversity, you dont want decentralisation. you prefer the single central team of 'distribution' and you definetly love the idea of locking funds up into more central custodians

so how about you get on with your life and do some research to actually learn whats really happening so you can stop flip flopping in and out of certain things. and then i wont have to yawn and laugh at your posts so much.

(i now expect yet another boring rhetoric from him or his buddies side tracking the topic to harp on about some other social drama.. so sorry folks for his boring interuptions)

its not about pumping fee's up. its about controlling more then one hop of a route


imagine users setting up independant broadcasted channels.
to have a network where 1 million users are connected involves
hop:
each node being a full node, paying onchain fe's to open/close. AND have
3 channels(onchain fee's x3) and be possibly 20 hops away (upto 20LN fee's per payment)
5 channels(onchain fee's x5) and be possibly 10 hops away (upto 10LN fee's per payment)
7 channels(onchain fee's x7) and be possibly 8 hops away (upto 8LN fee's per payment)
11 channels(onchain fee's x11) and be possibly 6 hops away (upto 6LN fee's per payment)

would you want to split your funds up into 3-11 allotment and hope that all the nodes on a route are all online just to spend one of those allotments and then still be left with the burden of paying broadcast fee's to move allotments when closing/opening channels

..
play scenarios out in your mind. or use some pen and paper and actually run simulations (thus not having to risk actual spending)
you will shock yourself how many people end up choosing the convenience of just throwing all their funds into a custodian knowing they get convenient service. without the hassles..


also ask yourself why do you think the blockstream devs removed the fee priority mechanism and instigated the fee war and really are pushing onchain fe's to be way over 10cents and hopes that $2 fee's become the norm by saying bitcoin is not fit to pay for coffee($3)
its because of these reasons
1. USERS with more than a few channels and set up as masternodes wont want to get paid just a few cents a day from their few channels. so fee's would be cheaper than onchain but wont remain sub pennies for long. it would end up being USERS that push fe's up for their "independant" routing

2. the commercial side will, due to the 'convenience' affect have many hundreds of thousands/millions of users(check out DCG's portfolio of companies) so add it all up.
if a oligarchy charge 0.1cent per hop with a system of being only 6 hops.=$0.006 per payment * million =$6k a day=$2m a year

now imagine with onchain fee's being $2 and greedy USERS wanting to charge 10cents. as its still 20x cheaper than onchain... meaning the oligarchy can outbid them at 3cents=$180k a day=$65mill a year
and thats just from 1million users making one payment a day..... think about it
imagine if you wanted to trade on coinbase and then arbitrage to circle and then arbitrage to another exchange all via LN.
thats 3 payments a day. which is only going to be cheapest/convenient by using the commercial factory/hub model
thats near on $200m a year DCG get from just 1million users

..
i know what your thinking next.
if a oligarchy can make $2mill a year. so can users, but no
many users are not paying other users. most transactions go into services. and as i shown before. those services are walled up by their own team of hubs and watchtowers.

knowing an independant hop model of users is 6-20 hops. for a user who has a 3cent fee per hop to make minimum wage of america. a user would need to have 200 payment looping through it an hour.
users wont have the funding to hot-potato 200 payments an hour and then pay onchain fee's to shift around the allotments per channel

so while the majority are 'convenience' using the commercial hub model. hardly anyone would be using the independent hop model as their destinations are not close by/cheap to reach/funded 24/7. as the only way to get near a service with low fee's is to use the system the service has set up

'lost'? 12.5
nope
they just didnt gain.
no one expects everyone to win(gain), and then have funds taken off them(lose it). it has always been the case that only 1 person gets the gain.. so those who dont get their block immortalised are not losers. as they were not promised/given anything to lose.. its just a 'better luck next time' thing


what you dont realise is that with factories, hubs and watch towers. thats exactly how things will play out
to even gt within 4 hops of an exchange you would have to be one of their customers which is using them as a factory
imagine there is coinbase exchange they wont want millions of customers direct IP linking to them. so they will set up hubs around them to take the strain. also because millions of users wont want to be masternodes and just want to be mobile wallet apps. they will use watchtower servers to connect their apps to



now imagine people deposit real bitcoin to coinbase. and then coinbase write offchain/unconfirmed 12 decimal IOU transactions with their hubs. and the hubs make (12 decimal unconfirmed) transactions to the watch towers and the watch towers make them for the users.
so now the users have "funds". (12 decimal unconfirmed 3 levels away from blockchain UTXO) which the channel parties can agree on, because of the chain of unconfirmed 12decimals all lead back and can aggregate back to a UTXO with coinbase happily

now imagine a green user wants to pay a blue user.
count how many hops there are.
now imagine red, yellow and purple are all owned by DCG.
when someone makes a payment they are not paying just under 1 cent once. they are paying under 1 cent per hop. and if it takes 6 hops to get to another individual. thats 5x fees for DCG

then because its based on factory funded channels instead of broadcast funded, to open and close channels users pay their watchtower and hub and coinbase a fee to close. all for the convenience of not having to broadcast onchain. and then coinbase, its hubs and watchtower then re-write new offchain 12 decimal transactions to allow users to re-open new channels
so those red/yellow and purple get open/close channel fee's too...(in other words DCG gets paid 5x fee)

...... or users can avoid factories and the inner branches surrounding coinbase and hope they can self broadcast their own independant channel open and connect to someone thats hopefully not more than 10 hops away from coinbase(which even so. they still end up paying DCG more than just 1x fee) once the payment gets to the fringe of the inner branches surrounding coinbase if the particular route has to go through the inner branches

its the same "routing" as banking.(in america the links between banks are called routing numbers)
town banks link to regional banks which link to HQ. that way the HQ doesnt handle millions of customers direct, but each town bank(watchtower) manages ~8000 customers yet the real 'value' is held at the HQ(fortknox)

in the UK. banks dont care much about people swapping banks, because ultimately its all owned by either Bank of england or bank of scotland
in the UK. phone line providers dont care about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by openreach
in the UK. gas providers dont care much about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by transco
in the UK. electric providers dont care much about people swapping providers, because ultimately its all owned by transco

yea a few percent of cases will have independent channels. but when it
costs 10x+ fees due to many hops.
involves praying that the independent channels are online 24/7,
involves knowing it will cost you onchain fee's to closeout,
involves hoping the independent routes have funding to even allow payment hops..

eventually people give in and just play by the oligarchy game for convenience... and thats the point of their game

im not interested in the altcoins.

but also its not that devs get funded. its the actions that occur due to their funding.
it would have been better to not have a single team of devs funded by the same group. especially when that same group then make a roadmap, not just for their implementation, but for the direction the NETWORK should take. thats my issue

if core just wanted to be a level playing field implementation along side other brands. where core would have actually come to some united agreement with the community in 2015 about many different things we would have advanced the bitcoin network alot sooner and alot more diverse people would have seen alot more diverse features implemented.

did you know that at the original late 2015 meetings if core actually held onto a lengthy agreement of then a segwit2x proposition. blockstream would have got segwit implemented sooner AND the rest of the community would have got more utility for legacy transactions. other features would have/could have ben implemented too... but no. it had to be the blockstream paid devs way or no way. which then causes the community divides

w would have also seen many businesses not get segregated off the network, we would have seen less coders making altcoins but instead happily innovating bitcoin under their own full node brands. bitcoin would have been alot stronger and more united by having more diversity

there are literally hundreds of businesses in the crypto industry (thousands, but some are home/hobby business) so its not that hard for talented coders to find employment. but when the main devs are all circled into one group. and the so called 'innovations' of bitcoin do not positively affect bitcoin, but are done to promote alternative networks designed to push people off the bitcoin network. thats where i have issues

LN is a separate network for multiple coins. its not a bitcoin centric network. its only promoted as a bitcoin centric network purely for investment by screaming the word bitcoin in the same sentance as LN.
LN's design is to have blockstreams investors (DCG and digital garage) b the main factories/hubs/watchtowers. where they get the fee's from controlling routes and channel opening/closes. and its all because blockstream got paid over $100m and need to offer a solution to repay their investors. (ever wonder why there was a november segwit deadline and then a sudden price trigger event right at the dates blockstream got paid a tranche of funding the same week in 2017)

if the devs were more diverse where their idea's were more independent and not controlled by some sugar daddy investor. things would be different

yep.
as i said before the social drama queens meandered in
instead of everyone paying a 'average' fee
if someone wanted to respend funds every 10 minutes then each of their transactions should be 144 more than someones transaction who only spends once a day. (yes its possible)
the advantage being.. even for the social drama meander group. is that it incentivises the spammers to then use LN. (thus the social drama group can then celebrate they have actual customers to feed fee's from). meanwhile letting others remain using bitcoins network without being impacted by huge fee's

it also can b done by not having bloated features onchain. but going back to simple practical lean transactions. thus the byte per tx goes back down, which then allows more transaction count in.

it also can be done by removing the washy washy code of scale witness which has always been a stupid thing. thus allowing real utility of space instead of trying to hide/fudge the numbers

oh look. no mention of me saying block sizes need to grow by "tremendous volume". and yet these things will help adoption. and also transaction throughput beyond the 600k number thats been apparent since 2010

bitmain dont make the hardware.
comparison.. if bitmain was Asus. then TSMC would be AMD

bitmain dont control 50-80%
bitmain dont operate alot of hardware on behalf of clients
comparison.. if bitmain was a state the mining farms would be private land owner just paying taxes

there are 20+ pools
there is one main brand of node

even the top pool which people call bitmain is actually not one team. there are multiple facilities in multiple countries with multiple mindsets. did you know that the blocks tagged as just 'antpool' have half a dozen facilities. this can be fact checked by noticing the half a dozen DIFFERENT coin reward addresses they re-use. and also double fact checked because some of the facilities are accepting of segwit, some are not. which shos diverse management. and then when you geolocate th facilities you will see they are spread out over san fran, georgia, iceland, hongkong, mongolia

yet. when it comes to developers
one team called core. REKT campaigning any diversity off the network, mandating people follow cores roadmap or be found thrown off the network

but hey. if you think losing a couple transactions for an hour until they get reconfirmed by another block is a bigger threat than a dev team that implement changes without consensus.. then let that be your weakness in understanding the security of decentralisation

1. i have no buzzwords. infact i have used your buddies buzzwords which you then foolishly social drama debate dont exist.
maybe its faster for you to talk to developers and get your echo chamber refreshed rather then just repeat your empty defenses. because what you are defending is comedy. the devs are happy to admit their actions so you trying to deny things happening is you defending an empty defense
2. putting funds into contracts with factories/hubs/counterparts is not decentralised. having to open channels and tie yourself to such where you can only operate when those ties are online and funded are not signs of decentralised. so your adoration of LN is not in a aim of decentralisation.
funny part is your more than happy to have millions of users having just phon apps connected to LN. knowing that LN factories would be masternodes.. yet you then flip flop argue that millions of users need to be full nodes of just one network
and how you believe that its impossible.
please take some time to do some research

3. your adoration of only wanting core to be the main team is also not a aim of wanting decentralisation. you have remained very confused for a couple years now thinking distributed nodes of the same brand=decentralisation. you need to learn what decentralisation really means
4. lowering fee's does not affect the security of the network. infact it raises the security. because if adoption grows then more people will want to use bitcoin and will actually have more diverse people not just using the distributed nodes of core. but also there would be different teams of developers making full nodes for bitcoin instead of altcoins. because they see the benefits of concentrating their talent on bitcoin rather than altcoins. thus adding brand diversity which increases decentralisation and reduces the chances of bugs that only affect one brand from impacting the entire network

the reason developers make altcoins is because of how hard it is to be a independent dev team on bitcoin.  
imagine how many teams and diverse full node brands there would be if the REKT campaigns and mandated rule changes never occured to push diversity off the network


its not warped into cheaper fee's than altcoins. its warped into more expensive fee's than the unbanked billions of people can afford. thus the RESULT of such... is that people have decided to make altcoins that are cheaper and are able to actually innovate without the core command dictating over them
the real funny part is even the core devs that want to stifle bitcoin network growth are now themselves making alternative networks. .. that there is called shooting self in the foot. or atleast a planned roadmap to push people away from using bitcoin.
even you yourself would prefer less people using the bitcoin network. you want people to use lightning or liquid or other non-bitcoin networks

you cant continue to say you want a secure network and then go advertise insecure networks and state how bitcoin cant/wont scale and how other networks are the solution.. that there is your flip floppy hypocrisy/greed of only caring about your empty and dreaming mindset that oneday you will get rich from these other networks. sorry you wont get rich from them. so put your greed aside and research the reality beyond your echo chamber, as i feel the only time you will take a step back and do some real research is when you put your greedy dreams of LN riches aside

just admit it. your echo chamber has told you that the solution to 'full node costs' is to make a separate network where full node users can make money.. and that is the the only thought that runs through your head


your defense is simply "wrong because [insult]"
you have no clue, all i have ever told you was to do your own research outside your echo chamber. if you dont like indepndant research. thats your problem
but you carry on with your insults. waste your time. many othrs would prefer to spend their time researching. and good for them. but yea you keep up with your insults. it suits you, your echoing insults ar the same as your echoing rpeats of the myths and fud you try to say when promoting Ln as great and bitcoin as broke.
th echo's of saying the same rhetoric as ben heard 3 years ago by the same group who dont care about bitcoin but are only interested in greed.


1. there are many ways to increase transaction counts without "tremendous volume".. again your stuck in the 'gigabyte by midnight mindset' ..
2. that part of your rant alone shows how you think stifle/be patient and then jump to tremendous levels is the only route.
3. miners do not bear the costof extra transactions.. go research that.. tip: buy a ASIC and a screwdriver and try to find a hard drive inside one
4.nodes bearing the cost. again get out of the gigabytes by midnight mindset. its really making you narrow minded. there are many many ways to sort it
5. in the last couple years the transaction count per HARD DRIVE byte has NOT become more efficient. go research that
6. BITCOIN NETWORK development has stagnated. the code for the last couple years has not been about bitcoins network advances, but advances to make LN a thing. LN is not a bitcoin network
7. if you think that bitcoins network has advanced and transaction counts per byte are better. show me a single day where transactions counts surpassed 600k, a number known about back as far as 2010

mining is about collating data and then locking it.

thats it

its then the nodes that have the actual power. they can reject blocks that dont fit the rules.
in short the only power mining pools have is to decide which transactions to include or exclude.

pools dont have the power to change the rules.

the power to change the rules remains with developers that code the rules and distribute their code.
if developers have code that bypass users ability of choice. EG remove the consensus opt-in of new rules by making things mandatory/compatibility bypassed. then that is the bigger threat

many people think bypassing consensus is great as it makes changes easier/faster to administer. but the downside is... guess what. making it easier/faster to make changes.

pools cant make changes
devs can

learn who the real threats are
especially when the devs hate having opposing teams to keep them inline
especially when the devs hate having to play using consensus and prefer by-passes
especially when the devs hate having to work on a lvel playing field with other teams and instead want to be the only core/reference/fullnode/implementation

as for those assuming mining is a threat due to "50% china".. thats just the comedy FUD of racists
firstly the hashrate distribution is actually more diverse then the racists chant

there are multiple reasons why altcoins dont have big adoption. doomad ranted about dogecoin but then didnt want a explanation about dogecoin. your ranting about bitcoincash, but im guessing you dont want an explanation about bitcoin cash. so ill just leave you both to do your own research if you want to know altcoins, as thats just your groups typical distraction from the topic, to get people to talk about other coins and then you both social drama some stuff about it

sticking to the topic my debate is about the fee's because i do speak to people outside this forum and they openly admit why they dont see the advantages you try to over promote/over promise about alternative networks you want people to use..


people been waiting YEARS for change. its why topics about adoption still keep being brought up daily. you can deny that people ask about it but this topics very existance proves people are asking about it. by you saying be patient, by your group saying the dvs ar 'conservative' is the one of many reasons adoption is not growing with bitcoin
show me a day where transaction counts exceeded 600k a day which is a number that has existed since 2010


a unconfirmed transaction is not a settled confirmed and fully paid payment until its confirmed. go research that.
i can send millions of unconfirmed tx's to people. and they will not treat it as payment received/settled until its confirmed.
understand the point of confirmations and immutibility. understand th point of bitcoin. understand that LN does not guarantee confirmation after closing channel. go actually speak to LN dev's about the flaws of LN. then you will see even they will say how LN is more akin to IOU than actual settled payments

as for your "buddies" you know who you are you all use the same lame excuses, same buzzwords, you all love to defend each other and you are all only intersted in not letting bitcoin network gain utility because all you care about is LN. sorry to tell you this but you and your buddies wont get to be the factories earning funds from LN. the sooner you put your personal greed aside and realise that your not helping bitcoin the sooner you will wake up to the echo's you recite

awwwwwww after months of you both trying to shut me up. as soon as i say shut up, you run to the defense and act like im attacking doomad.

in england saying 'shut up about.. ' is not a sentance demanding he should actually shut up. its a saying that there is no point in me getting involved with the meander as its so off topic/uninteresting/not the point that its just wasting peoples time.
its not demanding he should shut up. its more a reply people say when they wont respond to such

eg 'your mumma soo....".. 'shut up about my mumma' = i dont wanna talk about my mumma

but yea go play with your social drama's and distractions and meanders about un important things. ill stick to discussing real issues and who are the causes.. you can continue to play altnetwork hypotheticals and desires to push people out of bitcoin

anyway this topic yet again has meandered away from the topic and just turned into another wave finger at people.
so getting back to the topic

lowering fee's will increase bitcoin adoption. and thats not about blocksizes. its about merchant acceptance and popularity
lowering fee's will increase bitcoin adoption. and thats not about blocksizes. its about non western cultures affordability to make payments

separetly people dont need dedicated machines for bitcoin, they dont even need fibre. there are many many many many ways to increase transaction counts without the exaggerations of 'gigabytes by midnight' myth and server farms

if you lot want to continue with the whole server farm and gigabyte block exaggerations to avoid discussing bitcoin adoption/growth. then thats your decision to stay stuck in your echo chamber. but if you actually care about BITCOIN network growth/adoption/utility. then atleast try to do some research and not just repeat the same echos of years ago.

and if you really do want to promote alternative networks such as lightning. atleast research them.
and dont waste your time replying to me. just do some research

go do some research and speak to people around the world

again for the multiple time. when a fee is more than an hours labour for billion people. you wont find a billion people seeing bitcoin as interesting as other payment options that dont charge an hours labour just to move funds
tip: go to africa and ask people bitcoin or mpesa and ask why
tip: go to slavic countries that have payment(debit cards) that can be topped up at grocery stores and ask them about costs

you also brought up about dogecoin. and my reply was simply there are 2000 coins if you wanna know the pros and cons of them go research them

stop being lazy and go do some research
its obvious you dont like what i have to say, so there has come to a point i am not going to bother spoonfeed you with stuff because your attitude is not about learning its just about causing social drama

so stop wasting your own time and DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

..
lowering the fee's does not cause an increase cost to full nodes.
full node users get no income. so lowering the fee does not cost full nodes any different.

secondly and separetly scaling bitcoin network does not cause significant change in cost.
again the only way to significantly change the cost of full nodes is if a significant change of throughput.
again your mindset is stuck in the myth of gigabytes by midnight for you to come to the assumption that a significant change has to happen rapidly to then cost users alot more

there are many many many many many many many many many ways to increase transaction count WITHOUT a "gigabyte by midnight" method.

go research that
you have made it clear your close minded about learning things. so thats why i have ended up just telling you to go DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

poor doomad, missing the point

1. bitcoin adoption has not grown over the last few years... LESS businesses have been accepting bitcoin. yes bitcoin is in a stronger position than other coins. but with 2000 coins out there its for you to research why bitcoin has advantages over the other crap coins because there are many reasons.. also its not the topic for me to deep dive into all the reasons. so if you want answers to why specific crap coins are not popular. go research them

2. im not demanding/mandating/tyranting things. you know this. i told you, show me my code where im forcing anything.. what you need to realise is that i am venting/voicing an opinion that counter you and your buddies. if you dont like it hit the ignore button. but if you really think i have the power to push my OPINION to cause action. then you really do not understand bitcoin..
here is a tip: this is a FORUM. for DISCUSSION. and that is it. if you dont like discussion that opposes your view then hit the ignore button. but never presume what happens on a FORUM can cause bitcoin changes.
seriously realise this is a discussion forum and realise if you dont like whats discusssed. either
dont get involved.
hit the ignore button
reply addressing the issue rather than crying about how you think a open discussion is some big powerful one man attack..
(get a grip in short)

3. you again are the exaggerator. i have my opinions and on a DISCUSSION forum i discuss my opinions based on information i gleamed over time from research and from speaking to many diverse people.
the stuff i do in the real world goes beyond discussing things and i speak to many people around the world. i went/go to many countries and majority of them are developing countries and yes i get alot of real opinions that oppose your echo chambers.
maybe it really is worth you taking some time to talk to people directly. like i said GO research. so please to, get out of your echo chamber and actually go speak to a variety of people. go to meetups. go travel the world. widen your prospective abit

as for your other exaggerations. you and your echo chamber of buddies that just repeat the same social drama crap to meander topics are the ones trying to shout that im an advocate, an authority, and its you that keeps shouting that im demanding crap.
ITS A DISCUSSION FORUM.. end of.
if you dont like discussions. ignore the discussion.

4. shut up about your hypotheticals.
because. no hypotheticals needed. mandated to throw out opposers was a real event
rekt campaigns were real events.
i have no code so trying to say im forcing anything is a non event because i am not demanding anything. im discussing things on a discussion forum.
plus your just meandering off topic.
 this topic just like many other topics you meander into should NEVER be about me. but be about THE TOPIC. if you dont like the person making a point. ignore them and stick to the topic
realise the reality of things. if you are not sure about anything go research it. and if you dont like someones opinion. then talk about the topic and ignore the person.

have a nice day

there are many many many ways to scale bitcoin network and keep fee's low for the majority of people. MANY ways. go research them.

more electric is used to keep bottles of Pepsi chilled.

and in all your waffle you still are ignoring the problem that many people talk about. and instead you just want to social rant at me.. very un persuasive... but very boring

have a nice day though.
quick response to your points
1. other coins are not popular due to many reasons. do research
2.i am not deciding what people need or dont need. i am no the one coding the needs. i am just highlighting that the ones coding stuff are ignoring peoples needs. go research
3.lowwages does not go out the window. funnily enough i speak to many people around the world on low wages and i am the one not afraid to speak out for the issues they have. countries on low budget can get low budget PC. funny part is in western countries westerner pay a premium. developing countries dont have $50 a month phone bills. they have phonebills at what equates to the same % of general income.
EG if in america average low income is $300 a week where internet is $50 a month. developing countries at a third the income have third the internet cost. might be worth you understanding that most bills are based on % of basic income to be 'competitive' and its not like the whole world pays the same price. go research
(hint: why do you think people prefer imports and buying stuff from alibaba/aliexpress rather than ebay/amazon)
(double hint: things are cheaper when obtained from countries with cheaper labour)

4. you keep thinking that i am mandating stuff.. yet you cover up the ones that actually do mandate stuff..  i think you are so backward thinking you forget who is saying what. remember the devs are happy to admit their schemes so why endlessly pretend they do nothing and some how make out its me that is changing things..
in short if you dont like an opinion. click the ignore button

'wares'
i know that DT has some sexual motive to promote james. but i am glad DT hasnt gone as far as trying to hawk james under'wear'. i hope DT just drops the narative and doesnt start to put a price on james 'skiddies' like DT was trying to put a price on certain account usernames