trading bitcoin for USD... is a big no no as that also requires MSB licences which are a SEC requirement
it doesnt matter if the 'USD' is just a mysql database balance, a crypto/stable coin.. any token/balance thats pegged or described as value as USD puts it in the realm of being a MSB

6. the nonce. is just a space to put in a number.
imagine you had some text :
'blahblahblahdeblah'
the text and a nonce would be like
blahblahblahdeblah000000
if you hashed it you would get
161F37591904929E6EBFDD9BA4DFB22C092204DE58D552E46FF9F771AAF186D4
so changing the nonce changes the result
blahblahblahdeblah000000=161F37591904929E6EBFDD9BA4DFB22C092204DE58D552E46FF9F771AAF186D4
blahblahblahdeblah000001=86E8E440341479C85888F906EE103579BE4EF34582FDECB546BBF43AC3C3A904
blahblahblahdeblah000002=887C68F2C56015B3CBFE4D3E76531AA2A1B4855CE9394940F783B0BE01BF1ABC
blahblahblahdeblah000003=E110996EBDBFFD6FB63D78FEABE2AF3F89577CE031A9764C6D6C4C98F3711794
blahblahblahdeblah000004=576889D3D11E55ACA59B4176B2119ED8B7DD8B571C0622AEFB0B4564F1D2D71D

7. if a few pools crate blocks within seconds of each other there is a chance that different users would get different blocks. depending on how they are connected to each other.(a small rar chance of this happening)

ALL the pools then restart working on the next block. and again whoever is fastest wins.
and this time the gap between first and second place might be wider so now the winner is a clear winner which then makes all users choose to trust the fastest clear winner. and so will hold onto the blocks that are linked to the winner chain of previous linked hashes and ignore the second place

people in second place dont win anything. they just have to retry and hope at some point they gt to first place.

due to issues where users might (rarely) hold a different block due to the race competition.. block rewards are not spendable instantly.. but instead untill 100 other blocks are stacked/linked ontop because the chances of people editing blocks and then catching up (point 4) and also the races swapping latest blocks. are not going to be a concern to a block 100 blocks deep(100 confirms) as the odds of negative impact resulting in changing something 100 blocks ago is soo small. its then deemed safe to let the winner finally spend their rewards of the block they won 100 blocks ago

OP
your quoting a crap media
crap media quoting a panda
panda is quoting an image of a tweet
image of a tweet is quoting a tweet that says

if you store coins yourself you control your security
if you store on an exchange use only a trusted exchange

OP says CEO is saying dont store on exchanges
but the quote of th quote (from panda) is saying th CEO is saying to store coins on exchanges..

but the actual tweet is unbiased either way. its just two if statements where the "if" is subtly implied

anyway best advice is dont use an exchange as a custodian wallet. they are not designed or insured as being custodial wallets. they are just a trading service. most exchanges have terms and conditions wrote towards exchange trading, which means expect losses and you cannot hold an exchange liable for losses [of trading] which if translating to fools using an exchange as a custodian. is also implying you cant hold the exchange liable for loses.. meaning if hacked, your screwed.

so only use an exchange to exchange. and yes expect loses. dont think your funds are insured

1.a. its more so that when a new block is added the previous/older block(s) are safer to trust as stronger. EG a transaction in a block 100 blocks ago (100 confirms) is safer than a transaction with only 1 confirm

1.b. because a block contains the hash of previous blocks then to have a valid block does require clear links that do go all the way back to the genesis block. for instance you cannot just copy ethereums block history or litecoins block history to be a bitcoin attack chain. because although their blockheights(number of blocks) are more. the genesis wont match

2. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm

3. yes each tx has its own hash which is called a TXID (transaction identifier)

4. he can only ultimately alter which transactions were in a block. thats the easy part.. catching up with the network after is the harder part
say blockheight was 570000 and someone wanted to edit out a tx in 569999. they would do that but then they would need to PoW mine the hash for their 569999 and then add that hash to their 5700000 then PoW hash that block.
the rest of the network would probably be on 570002 at this point because while he went back everyone else continued forward
so the person editing would need to catch up and race against the network hoping to get ahead so the network would accept the alteration.. which at 15% has little chance of happening

5. save as last point but much more chance.

6. in simplified terms the block header has a nonce. ASIC create a hash that is the block header and where the nonce changes. this makes the hash change. they keep changing the nonce until they find a hash that meets the difficulty requirements

7. imagine it like 15 different groups(pools) racing each other to get a block hash result that meet the rules. only one can win per block.

8. continuing from point 7. the other pools dont get anything. its like a 100m race the first one to cross the line wins.. as long as they are not found cheating

the fuss is that LN is not a bitcoin feature. its its own separate network for multiple coins to use (thus not something to concentrate on giving bitcoin uniqueness)
bitcoin had to b modified to become compatible to the commercial network known as LN. LN was not modified to fit bitcoin.

the fuss is that BITCOIN i will emphasise this BITCOIN NETWORK needs to scale, yet years of delays, excuses and backtracking and 'beta/experiment' blah is now turning into bitcoin cant scale so hand bitcoin to factories(banks) and let them give you unconfirmed/non blockchain audited 12 decimal pegged tokens. as the only road to go down.

the fuss is even if LN works for a niche of daily spenders(yp even in utopia its not fir for everyone). the bitcoin NETWORK still needs to scale to manage such. and also cope with the people that dont want to use LN...

and yet. years later. BITCOIN has not progressed.
infact many are already starting to say using other networks to exit LN is a future.
the same old banking/thunderdome tactics.
gold and silver may enter silver may leave

we even now have the community making out that being a true bitcoin fan (bitcoin maximalist) are bad.

sorry but th fuss will continue if the whole ethos of bitcoin being an open barriers digital cash. gets morphed into a bank vaulted coin to play around with non blockchain unconfirmed funds that are no better than fiat.

bitcoin is in beta and its been 10 years.
using the Beta excuse is just saying they can stall things for as long as they like, promise anything and if a flaw is found then and only then do they backtrack their over promises and just say well "its an experiment" "it's beta"

i think too many people that dont actually use LN or have not even done the research on its limitations/flaws, are too excited about the over promised utopia. and are happy to say bitcoin cant scale purely to advertise this altrnative network thy have little clue about

so heads up. heres an actual LN, core and blockstream dev who actually openly is telling people some of the flaws that he says himself will be unlikely resolved
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

yea 12 decimal values get aggregated(calculated)
but bitrefill are in the control seat.

remember the promises of LN
it was: spend 'your' funds instantly 24/7
became: let a factory control the funds and hope they are online when you need their authorisation

it was: close channels and broadcast when you like
became: submit a close request to a third party and hope they dont stiff you

i think people are forgetting the whole point of bitcoin. and they just want fiat2.0

all i say is to do your own research.
also read my footnote.
"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience"

you sound too much like doomad. which is just empty rebuttals and implying i say things i dont actually say

try doing some independent research, and not think what you have learned from a certain buddy group you repeat stuff from is right.
its very telling your stuck in the repeat what your buddies say boring mythical crap of over promoting something you have yet to research yourself because even after months of giving you hints. stats and data. your rebuttals just become empty "wrong because wrong"
take some time to learn something not involving the certain group. exit your echo chamber of all your buddies thinking they are right because they all kiss each other and agree with each other simply because they only ever see and hear one story

you seem to not yet even know the depths of the byzantine generals problem to even know what your referring to. maybe when you learn the real stuff you will understand why blockchains are revolutionary and why everyone is so shocked and astonished at what satoshi solved in 2009. LN does not solve the byzantine generals problem.
there is no blockchain, no community audit. not strict rules that LN NODES have to adhere to strict community protocol.
LN is not revolutionary. its actually a step down from bitcoins/blockchain revolutionary problem solving.


do some independant research... for once.
bank accounts are just like LN channels. think about hubs as town/regional banks. think about how the funds flow through banking systems
LN is not the same 24/7 PUSH tx system as blockchains. LN is the 'is the 'bank' open and online to authorise payment.

blah blah blah you rebutt with the ignore the security concerns. the code issues, the limitations and flaws.. and just reply with promotional script of a over promised network.. as usual but you miss the point.
learn HOW they do it.. learn and research HOW and you will see the 'third party' you love to dismiss the existence of


i do. i dont just ask a few friends for a promoted glossy overview of over promises. i actually read the code, documentation. i even get information from the devs themselves.. i doubt you even watched the video of the devs calling out all the flaws even they admit they think cant/wont be fixed
..
now here is a question for you:
are you someone that actually wants to know how things actually work and know both the positives and negatives of something
or
are you someone that just wants to promote positives because your buddies think IF its a success in someway they are gonna get rich from it. thus you think maybe you can get profit following them

analogy:
exchanges HOARD hundreds of thousands of btc.
but trade volumes of the non blockchain exchange databases are not hundreds of thousands.
they are just hundreds being day traded (rinsed and repeated)
emphasis on a non blockchain system

secondly with LN
while BTC(8 decimal) is locked up in factories (like bitrefill recently announced) they then create channels with users and give them unconfirmed/unaudited balance of 12 decimal values.
these transactions do not have a bitcoin blockchain parent UTXO as an input.. but give a user a grandchild unconfirmed balance output where the parent input is also a unconfirmed input

all so that at the end of the 30 day lock. the user cant just broadcast a tx onchain, but have to send it through bitrefill and request bitrefill to aggregate the balances and charge a user to broadcast back to the bitcoin network using a 8 decimal TX. or (bitrefill prefers) to get users to just open a new channel. which they can do because the user only gets to handle 12decimal transactions so bitrefill are not afraid of early broadcasts

now you are just being ignorant after months of the same things being said. but your own post history can remind you if you genuinely cant even remmber your own converastions
removed: fee priority mechanisms, prices 2009-2015 were pennies. now they are more
stalled: BITCOIN NETWORK scaling: 2010 the 7tx/s number was known .. (600k tx a day) show me a day exceding 600k tx
sidestepped: many things. read the 2015 roadmap where things were meant to move along in weeks/months to scale BITCOIN NETWORK where the actual results of2019 are a tx format that is a gateway to another network and a bloat expansion (not to scale up) to try avoiding reduction of tx counts to fit bloated new features
the MoV: the very devs you love to defend are the ones shouting that bitcoin cant scale. even you and your buddies are of that mindset that bitcoin cant be MoV and will be SoV

seems you have become ignorant, and even forgetting your own mantra's and mindsets on the issues


i can write a transaction on a piece of paper and hand it to someone. guess what it wont be considered a bitcoin transaction.
first rule of bitcoin/blockchains.. if its not on the blockchain it didnt happen
learn the terms "confirmed" "settled"

secondly the LN transactions are not blockchain transactions. ther is no guarantee that they will ever be blockchain transactions. so at best they are promises. and we all know promises can be broke.

even the LN devs admit this. that they are a future promise to pay. much like showing off a bank statement that you are well funded but writing an IOU that gets adapted and re-signed before being settled

i say this with actual sincerity
ACTUALLY RESEARCH LN!!!!

oh and let me guess tether is actual dollars will be your next rebutt.. think about why tether is not actual dollar. and think real hard about the reality of LN. not the fluffy pony hopes your buddies promote to you that LN will work out in the end and will be utopia

a ponzi is where some guy has a big bank account. everyone puts lots of money in. but the guy only gives out pennies on the dollar as interest/dividends to keep people from asking for all their funds back.

crypto is not a big moneypot with a mr ponzi
crypto is like buying a asset. like a car. you own the asset and you decide when you buy/sell it.
you dont earn interest/dividends from it. you dont have any guys holding value on your behalf.

the asset just has a price depending on what price people want to buy and sell it for. which is why its volatile

firstly, when i say something. i don some actual research and look at statistics and find different sources.
secondly you think what i say might be wrong not due to statistics/data. but due to echo chamber rants from a group of people

thirdly i dont hope you just believe me for the sake of believing me, even you know i have annoyed alot of people by asking them to do their own research, that includes you and your buddies.

its been months now. have you learned (without the buddy echo chamber) what:
consensus is. in regards to byzantine generals and why bitcoin/blockchain invention is so revolutionary and LN is devolved tech
LN factories. in regards to the "3rd party" / "middleman" you continue to deny but seem to not want to research/admit

but anyway. main point is do your own research beyond the base stuff first presented to you.. look beyond the base and look at where the source material is and the context

oh look more poking the bear.. ill bite, yet again..
but before i begin. i did try avoiding the pokes of the bear for the hypocritical point of what is wrote above in regards to ad-hom. where i tried to avoid derailing into persona comments unrelated to bitcoin full node issues.
but seeing as more than one person wants a response. ill give it.

i make points about how core devs are doing things that are taking people off the network. bitcoin is not some AI that self codes. yes i mention devs by name such as wuille lukeJr and gmax
that is not ad-hom. that is highlighting who is involved

i have never made a comment about gmaxwell personal attributes that had nothing to do with the topic. EG i do not meander into attacks about his beard or the way he walks down a sidewalk.

instead i talk about bitcoin issues caused by devs. and yes its those devs that cause issues should be mentioned.
the funny part is how instead of understanding the content of the issues such as how their code has got negative impact. they want to meander the topic into appearing as if its a personal attack.
they keep writing code. but then pretend to be powerless janitors that cant code. they themselves play the ad-hom game by changing bitcoin but whenever anyone highlights the changes. suddenly the commenter must be some personal attacker.

the buzzwords "ad-hom" is an old and repeated strategy the core devs keep falling back on as their way to avoid answering why they are coding what they code.
the funny part though is if you done a word count on insulting/vulgar words. you will find those who are in core friendly group are the ones that do more 'attacks'. but i do not care about their vulgar meanders. i just continue to highlight the issues about bitcoin. and let them circle their out-dated tactics of avoiding listening to the community.

sorry but devs are not the victims here. greg got well paid to stifle bitcoin between 2015-2017 and has enough income to live happily because of it.
if you think greg is not involved in a "roadmap". well here is the advert naming it
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
and here is the roadmap itself. note the creator at the top
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html
what bitcoin has become is a network where:
if it doesnt follow cores roadmap, opposers are deemed not as a counter option. but as an attacker that needs to disappear.
devs prefer to have less people using the network
devs do not want bitcoin to be a unique success, as they are happy to program other networks and promote other networks and even promote their involvement of pushing counter options off the network

note. the false promotion
"been working on scalability for several years" (that was wrote in 2015 meaning they have ben scaling for years prior)
yet. satoshi in 2010 mentioned the 7tx/s number and so yea 2018-19 i questioned gmax about his "working on scaling BITCOINS SYSTEM" to show m one single day that out paces numbers known about since 2010, to show that scaling is actually occurring

oh and a further point about when Gmax shot himself in the foot with the example block of 12k+ Tx's before segwit. i knew about that in 2015. and do you know why i excluded it from the main conversation. because that block contains no signatures and as such, as a true full validating node. bypassing that block and auto passing it as good, without validating signatures. is a security risk.

do you think its good security for nodes to just pass blocks around without signatures and just treat the data as passable.. can you even try to consider the auditing/security risks. without diverting the topic to sound like it must be ok because you trust the devs that allow nodes to accept such a unvalidated set of tx

typical reply..
boring reply thats just the same as your buddies replies years ago. when you lot cant rebut, you then shout out certain buzzwords that are known in your group. before it was 'ad-hom' then 2018 it was 'gaslighting'..
well its 2019. time to think of a new buzzword

anyway my point is this.
you get the results based on what you decide to search for and what you decide to notice/react to/ take as the answer.
this topic has been open for a week now. but have you tried to change anything?

also if your easily triggered by selective results presented to you without looking at the source to check its validity. then by you reacting and thinking its a big deal that top results that appear to you are wrong. then it might be a lesson to not just take the first answer you get as the truth. a lesson that research takes more time than just taking the first answer spoonfed to you

have you tried to correct anything?
google snippets have feedback
wiki has edits

for me its not a rich vs poor debate. for me its those who want to change bitcoin to be PoS, IF they are doing so purely to get a lottery win and then exit bitcoin fiat rich....
...are the kinds of people we dont want changing bitcoin.. as they dont care about bitcoin.

and its not about rich or poor.
its not about how poor may deserve a lift off the ground, or slapped back down

its just if you dont care about bitcoins sustainability. and you have not done the research into which security is best. and all you can think about is profit. then maybe your not the best person to be handling the topic

all this waffle about social drama that dos not actually physically affect bitcoin.
so with that said. why isnt there the same waffle about BTCC and the other pools

remember. before you spew nonsense about bitcoin making ASICS. no TSMC make the asics
i find it funny how no one is talking about BTCC's disappearance since the BTCC buyout

i was expecting a rise due to the mining:market dynamics. i was expecting a larger rise in hashpowre, but it seems alot of people are sticking to s9's and s11's. and not that much is happening with the s15's

so the mining cost:market price is remaining low due to cheap s9's still circulating and changing hands at cheap second hand prices.
so for me its just a waiting game to see hashrates move into the 45-50exa before i start trusting a sustainable up movement of the price.

i know last octobers curve down in hashpower due to selling off s9's cheap caused the november market curve down. which i hoped would have just been a curve up due to new asics.. but it just a waiting game for the dynamics to play out as new asics come online and push the mining:market effect

i have a nice hoard of btc from years ago and i have no fear's in regards to price. the price will play out in the right directions once th dynamics head in the right directions. my concerns are more about a certain group wishing to stall/stifle bitcoins utility and mess with the market:mining dynamics by pulling people off the network

your turning into a flip flopper
you want to one minute say bitcoin is better than gold at MoE... but then say YOU say
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"

i fully understand you prefer centralisation, along with your buddies. that has been obvious for near a year of you and your buddies "dev defense" meanders.
but putting your opinions aside about your admiration for centralisation.
going centralisation(middlemen factories) in general removes desirability of bitcoin. people will start thinking its no better than fiat
locking funds up removes self control
locking funds up removes desire for people to want to be full nodes. which reduces security
locking funds up reduces onchain fees as theres less onchain utility makes miners less profitabl thus reduces security
along with many other things which i could continue listing makes btc less desirable and leads to people wanting to exit and use other coins.
all of which make btc have less value

this opinion of yours has flaws, ill explain.
1. out of all the coins not much are actually on exchanges. so the effect you think is not as much as you think
2. if anything. it wil be people on exchanges who will avoid exiting exchanges and instead lock into a channel with an exchange to be able to arbitrage faster. thus there would actually be more 'balance' on exchanges, because LN will benefit day traders more then it would average joe just buying occassional stuff

LN doesnt leverage bitcoins security, onc you update yourself with the 2018-2019 concepts and code of LN in regards to factories. the users are not even holding bitcoin. they are holding a 12decimal pegged token.
remember LN is a separate network and bitcoin had to change to fit LN's needs. not the other way round
LN has no blockchain. LN has no community audit. LN requires people to be online, LN requires people to sign on your behalf.
LN has none of the bitcoin ethos/features that secure bitcoin.
its like trying to assume bank notes are the same as gold. think about that in respect of the 18th century.. then play it out 200 years later and see the flaw of bank notes and gold


bitcoins PRICE is higher due to the underlying value held up via mining costs. there is hardly any 'speculative' value ontop due to peoples faith and boost due to desirability.
take people off the network. making it costly to use the bitcoin network and all the other reason will reduce the desire to mine it which will make bitcoin not as popular

again take utility away from the MINING network of a blockchain will cause the underlying support of the mining:market dynamic. which will affect its underlying value.

if you think bitcoin would remain top when other coins can do the same thing but without the restrictions applied to bitcoin. people will move to the coins with less restrictions.

remember bitcoin network is only stalled and costly. not due to some technological limit. but an implied limit by humans(devs)
again to quote you. you said:
"Bitcoin's decentralized design. Decentralization is inefficient and costly"
it is developers that put in the restrictions to make it inefficient and costly

lol
firstly i have apple shares. but i would never say i am the CEO of apple. .. as you say its a "representation"
firstly i have some fiat.. but i would never say i own debt.. as you say its a "representation"

secondly with shares, Apple can dilute the shares even without their "representative" owners consent
secondly with FIAT, banks can inflate the currency even without their "representative" owners consent

but bitcoin is different. it cant simply just change the rules without its owners consent
bitcoins blockchain actually is so transparent you can follow every transaction back to its mined block reward. you cant do "digital manipulation" in bitcoin.

i have a many bitcoin hoarded. but lets just say i have bitcoin address that i play with daily and i can guarantee you that you will not be able to stop me doing things with my coins. you cant:
freeze my funds
destroy my funds
take ownership of my funds behind my back
dilute my coins
inflate my coins
counterfeit my coins
destroy the transparent trail back to its source
destroy the relay effect that allows spending

the coins i own i own. not by representation. but by actual ownership.

now with that said..
as long as bitcoin has a purpose/utility. then it has value.
and bitcoin does have purpose/utility.

so i do own bitcoin which has value. which means i do own something.

yep key words "purchase".. "users dont put payment in themselves"

imagine bitreill as a factory
imagine bitreill as fortknox
people give 0.10000000btc to bitrefill (8 decimal bitcoins). these get locked under bitrefills control

bitrefil then opens a channel for 30 days and puts its own(unconfirmed/unaudited) 12 decimal tx into it. which because its not broadcastable onchain (bitcoin network will reject 12 decimal). bitrefil are happy to say user gets 0.100000000000. as at the 30th day it going to be bitrefil that gets to close the channel and aggregate the value. as they are the controller of funding

what then happens is bitrefil charge the user to get back the real 8 decimal BTC via the user paying the onchain fee and a exit LN fee... or for no/low price they can renew a new channel

much like how banks handled gold a couple centuries ago with the 'golds too expensive to unvault. how about take these silver coins(atomic swap for LTC) or just reopen a bank account and get new crisp unaudited bank notes(12 decimal unconfirmed tx value in channel)