define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control


so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed

yes you can close your account and open an account with another peer(bank)

i really do laugh when people try to deny another party is involved by saying 'but they are not a third party'
having anyone else involved and has partial or even main control means your not in 100% control

and if that other party has more control access of multiple users (hub/factory) then ask yourself
       y
       ^
       v
x<>o<>z

if you are X
what is o
2nd or 3rd party
peer or middleman

oh and if you think that users will be permanently online with a merchant:
all day for the purpose of one coffee a day
all day everyday for the purpose of buying groceries once a week
all day every day every week for the purpose of making one mortgage/rent payment a month

just to be tagged as 'second party' to avoid the meaningless tag of '3rd party'
you would be sadly mistaken

but trying to twist 3rd, into 2nd, into peer is more funny

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though devs are happy to admit it
why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though literally N of LN spells it out
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract of co-party control

why deny co-party control
why not just call it what it is and actually if you want to promote it to death. promote it for its reality. not its uptopia

a topic of bitcoin fundamentals.... and many end up just talking about price.................

maybe its not the fundamentals that are weaker or stronger

but the PEOPLES understanding of what a fundamental of bitcoin is, that is weaker

EG
was:
    a currency choice to escape from fiat
now:
   a currency choice to use for a bit and then escape back to fiat with more fiat

though i was only addressing his arrows were in the wrong direction....

to address your point.
things have been done.

if bitcoin was mined using CPU at todays 42exahash. would requires near a TRILLION of PC's(exawatts a year)

ASICS are a million times less electric at todats 42exahashs which requires only a few million asics(terrawatts a year)
PC 0.025mhash/j
asic 25,000mhash/j

it also must be mentiond just 3 months ago. the main ASIC was
10,000mhash/j
this weeks new asics are 25,000mhash/j which is 2.5 BETTER at handling electric per hash. without the hashrate of the network being much different that 3 months ago.. thus electric usage has dropped 2.5x since last autumn

most ASIC farms are attached to power lines that hydro electric is the main producer

infact right now if you really want to beleive the false story of china 50% mining.. lets just step into that delusion

1. china produce over 6000TW a year.
2. china consume over 5000TW a year. (before accounting for mining)
3. 100% of bitcoin mining is ~40TW a year.
4. 20TW a year is not even 1% of the EXCESS (difference between 5k-6k) that just goes to waste, unused/unpaid
5. china love it when people are help pay/use the EXCESS (difference between 5k-6k)

as for the processes
mining -> tokenisation
you might want to within a wider "bitcoin network" box. have the elements like propogation consensus application be apart enough that you can arrow the flow

                                                                                        -onion(tor)                 \
application-> semantics->mining ->application->propagation-internet                     > application->consensus->tokenisation
                                                                                         -satalite(blockstream) /


and also how you worded consensus and worded semantics need be tweaked

semantic protocol
a specification of how new blocks and transactions must be formatted and relate to previous blocks and transactions to be able to be verified to meet consensus

consensus
a function of general agreement that anyone can use to determine which of the multiple candidate ledgers meets all the protocol rules to become the publicly visible ledger

yes ut consumes (takes electric) it does not produce electric(leads to)

i was just basically saying about basic electric direction in the world
electric -> internet
not internet->electric

and
electric -> mining
not mining -> electric

without going through all the processes involved in the middle and the loops through propagation consensus and so on...
electric-> mining->tokenisation
not the other way round

in short without electric there would be no internet, no bitcoin
its not (as your first design) where the internet and bitcoin leads to electric
so your arrow points should be at the other end of the dotted line.. (not pointing towards electric but pointing FROM electric)

fundementals
like bitcoins original ethos
    was:
       'own your own funds'
    now:
       custodial
          exchanges
          LN vaults
          sidechain vaults

    was:
       'open barrierless'
    now:
       increased fee's barriers some users
       transaction per block limits
       preference to divert transactions off bitcoin

    was:
       'electronic cash'(medium of exchange)
    now:
       'store of value'
       other pegged networks/services to handle 'medium of exchange'
       bloated transactions for smart features that are not simple plain 'cash transfer' concept
       preference to divert 'cash' transactions off bitcoin network

starting at www.. all arrows lead to electric??

im sorry but electric leads to evrything
your arrows suggest
www->btc network[mining]->satellite[broadcast]->(+)->electric
www->LN[network]->satellite[routing]->(+)->electric
www->internet[physical]->(+)-> electric

seems you got things in wrong order

..
separately
satelites only used for crypto networks...?

...

the only reason companies like circle are publishing such numbers is because say there is a 0.1% fee..

its telling investors of companies like blockstream that their 'liquid' otc swap software. made companies like DCG.co
$24,000,000 ROI on the investment of dev teams making otc software

LN wont be used for people making 1 coffee purchase a day. its Niche will end up being people that want to balance swap with exchanges to arbitrage without waiting for confirmations.

people in the past would sell a btc for dollars on an exchange with highest btc-dollar rate.
then to arbitrage buy an alt with fast confirm. use that to exit one exchange go to another exchange with a cheap btc-dollar rate and then deposit alt to then sell for dollar to buy btc cheap

then hope to withdraw the btc to then return to the high btc-dollar to repeat.

.. stable coins sorted out the need to use an alt to shift dollar without wire transfer and LN will sort out shifting btf without confirm.

so those who love and dont mind locking their BTC up with custodians will use LN for that purpose.

LN wont be much of a vault for people that just buy coffee and groceries because the once a day, require to preplan a fortnight/couple month spending and the worry of route raiding, partners offline just are not convenient enough. people will just buy giftcards for their favourite merchants for convenience.

emphasis
LN's lockup would moreso be for the custodian factory of exchanges using the locked btc as a international 'reserve' system for inter-exchange swaps

showing ATH is misleading.
because 99.9% of people wont be able to sell at the ATH

but the lows show that holders ALWAYS have the chance to sell at or above the low.. because the price nevr goes lower then that number

EG take 2018
ATH:$20k
ATL: $3200

pick any day of the year. literally any day. you have 365 days to choose..
now whats the chances that your going to get to sell your coin at or above the 2 numbers above

ATH: 0.27%
ATL: 100%

in 2018 you were always able to sell your coin at or above $3200 GUARANTEED(in hindsight)

in short
pro for regulation people
1: "price rise. let loads of people in so i can exit and return to fiat as a millionaire" (facepalm)

con for regulation
1: unbanked need a bank,
2: need an ID,
3: need minimum deposit to cover the fee's of regulated custodians labour and insurances
4: upper limits of withdrawals
5: risk of funds bing frozen simply because you want all your funds out in one go
6: have to be questioned why you want your funds out
7: extra bureaocracy and big costs for people who want to start businesses
8: it doesnt put custodians in prison
9: it only inprisons custodians who didnt register and pay regulators fee's
10: scammers still scam but can now just say they are bankrupt
11: people cant freely use funds for any purpose anywhere any time. they have to obide by laws

..
im all for things like 'consumer protection' laws that can help identify custodians and actually let victims of malicious custodians get a fair and available route to redress/compensation. but regulations is not actually consumer protection.
regulation is to turn custodians into police police to monitor and control its customers

no paranoia. thats your emotional game.
i just think outside of the box. of multiple possibilities..  and laugh at those that only follow one storyline

seeing as topic creator has meandered into the depths of LN.
and to conclude my point about LN's issues with bitcoin

especially with the "proof of keys" initiative. (people should care more about 100% ownership than no/co-controlled convenience)

(numbers are loose pencil calculated back of the envelope of bytes that go into the 1mb base)(i didnt count witness as they dont apply to the tx count limit)
(being very economical(i rounded down bytes) to prevent the fluffy pony crowd arguments)

5k nodes, 18k channels = ~3.6 channels per node

to continue, open the ~4 channels lets call that 330bytes 1 in 4 out
close channels 4 in 8 out lts call that 670bytes

so lets call each user 1000bytes per open and close (being very economical with numbers)

so each block is the equivalent of 1000 users data requirement for LN overall (if no one else uses the bitcoin network for pure bitcoin network usage)
you would thing, wow thats great 144,000 users a day (if no one else uses the bitcoin network for pure bitcoin network usage)
you would think, wow great thats 8million users wanting 2 months lockin. (if no one else uses the bitcoin network for pure bitcoin network usage)

but no

thats means if 8 million users all opened. realise they made a mistake and closed on same day. it would take 2 months to sort out the bottleneck(if no one else uses the bitcoin network for pure bitcoin network usage)

lets word it another way 144,000 users can enter and leave LN each day (if no one else uses the bitcoin network for pure bitcoin network usage)

see why the bitcoin network needs scaling even if LN is used

silly people think the solution to this is just to force people to not be allowed to lock funds up for 1 day. and instead mandate people lock funds up for 2weeks-2months
silly people think the solution to this is just to force people use factories to not be allowed to unlock funds and instead reopen offchain mandate people never to unlock funds unless they pay a factory a large fee

the market cap is a meaningless number
it has always been meaningless. will people just stop referring to it

anyone can surpass the market cap using just $5

yep
make an altcoin with 5 trillion coins. buy one for $5 and automatically have $25TRILLION market cap

yep thats how empty and foolish the market cap measure is
it does not deserve any attention, so dont give it any attention

actually it wasnt
antpool is actually made up of like half a dozen facilities spread out over multiple countries
f2pool is just a stratum. (server) and people around the world linked to it
slushpool is managed from thailand
i could go on

but most propaganda was that those main pools were all "china"

even things like the ASICs. people thought was "china". but infact if they studied geography and researched the manufacturer they would know that taiwan is a separate island and country called the 'republic of china' which is different than china itself 'peoples republic of china'

anyway geography put aside

in the past it was 1% of people thought/knew about bitcoin. then a few percent.. an now if that statistic had any merit..... 34% say bitcoin has a place in the economy. which (without fluffy clouding it) if it has merit, then thats good news.

dont worry about the 66% just like no one cared about 99% just a couple years ago
the point is 34% is actually significant and positive number

bitcoins main thing that raises the price SUSTAINABLY is the market:mining dynamic

its why POS is so crappy. because even with beleived "better features".. the cost of its creation does not play out a good "whats the cheapest way to get the coin.

if it costs $4100 to mine 1 bitcoin then people would b willing to pay many thousands just to buy it...
.. as long as BITCOIN has utility and desire

if a PoS costs $0 to make then people wont pay thousands for it.

yes there is speculation on top which is where bitcoin moves way up from the underlying value.
yes there is speculation on top which is where PoS coin moves way up from $0 value.

but the speculative layer ontop value is subjective and not sustainable.
so LN is more speculative than an actual thing that will provide sustained underlying value

..
once you understand that. you can then run scenarios. and if bitcoin becomes to costly to transact as a bitcoin network. people will exit LN using other altcoins. thus making bitcoins desire/utility far less.
if desire for bitcoins net work desire declines people will end up mining other coins. again less desire for bitcoin when the mining:market dynamics play out.

so those fluffy clouders that over sell LN not realising that it can actually make things like litecoin become more popular, end up shooting themselves in the foot overselling LN and not concentrating on BITCOIN NETWORK things

LN has never been a bitcoin feature its always been a separate network.. infact bitcoin needed to change to become compatible to LN... LN did not change to be compatible to bitcoin

so stop advertising it as a bitcoin feature as if its something that will boost bitcoin and saying its somthing that bitcoin has and its linked as a bitcoin feature and a layer of bitcoin.. in a way that foolishly implies that it will make bitcoin supreme compared to other coins

what you then need to do stop saying bitcoins network needs to raise fees and shouldnt scale the bitcoin network with your empty fear arguments that scaling bitcoins network would harm bitcoin node users
purely to attempt to get people to depopulate bitcoins network and to then not want to return to the bitcoin network
i say this as your the one that seems to want to reduce bitcoins desire/demand/utility.
(much like 18th century banks told people to vault up gold, use co-signed accounts/unaudited payments. and then only exit with silver)
its the old thunderdome: 2 coins enter one may leave

so if you really want to promote LN FACTUALLY and fairly
1. inform people that its a multicoin separate network useful for a NICHE of users that spend often
             emphasis on niche..
             not something for everyone
             not essential thing that solves everything including scaling
2. inform people of the risks (not just the fluffy unicorns)
3. also try to persuade devs of bitcoin to adopt a fee priority mechanism for bitcoin to punish spammers(regular spenders) more than just average people. thus incentivising regular spenders into the niche use case of LN. while not harming everyone else who wants to fairly remain on the bitcoin network

atleast be critical (meaning pros and cons).. rather than the fake over promises/ under commitment fluffy cloud stuff you have been pushing

to the sheep
1. proof of keys is not about "sovereignty" it is about a subtle ruse/story to take funds out of an exchange in the hopes(of trace mayor) that the lack of supply of coins on an exchange will cause a flash price rise. but....
2. day traders that actually day trade will continue to day trade.
3. those that dont day trade and just use exchanges as a custodian, means:
       balance sat in exchange wallets(just for custodial purpose) is not balance sat on market order lines.
       thus are free to withdraw without impacting their normal daily activity,
       thus never impacted the price anyway.

so do not expect huge price movements via trace mayors ruse
i do not think trace mayor will get his hidden agenda of a flash price spike like he intends. as the only people that would withdraw ar the ones that are not actually day traders in the first place

...
what will actually cause more of a price surge. is the mining:market dynamic
new next gen asics are being received and set right now. with hashrates rising. the cost of mining rises.
those playing the "which is cheaper mining:buying coins" will see that buying can be cheaper. thus raising the price when they buy

then asic miners see the price rise that gives them confidence to mine more. which causes more cost of mining. rinse and repeat the dynamic upwards
and the dynamic plays out.


in october last year(3 months ago) the dynamic played out the opposite way.
old gen asics sold dirt cheap made mining cheap so less were buying coin. and more were mining and then selling coin for profit. causing the november down slope. other miners were not as profitable so stopped mining. causing more drama

the mining:market dynamic has always been a thing since 2009, so keep an eye on that as a influencer this month

fud= fear uncertainty, doubt

saying something is unnecessary is not going to cause fear
saying something is unnecessary is not going to cause uncertainty
saying something is unnecessary is not going to cause doubt

66% of americans think that a passport is unnecessary because they have no plans to leave the country.
this does not mean that passports are useless
this does not mean that passports are to be feared or people holding passports should be afraid
this does not mean that passports are now in doubt

what you need to consider is if this stat was properly representational of china
34% of chinese would consider crypto

to the sheep
1. proof of keys is not about "sovereignty" it is about a subtle ruse/story to take funds out of an exchange in the hopes(of trace mayor) that the lack of supply of coins on an exchange will cause a flash price rise. but....
2. day traders that actually day trade will continue to day trade.
3. those that dont day trade and just use exchanges as a custodian, means:
       balance sat in exchange wallets(just for custodial purpose) is not balance sat on market order lines.
       thus are free to withdraw without impacting their normal daily activity,
       thus never impacted the price anyway.

so do not expect huge price movements via trace mayors ruse
i do not think trace mayor will get his hidden agenda of a flash price spike like he intends. as the only people that would withdraw ar the ones that are not actually day traders in the first place

...
what will actually cause more of a price surge. is the mining:market dynamic
new next gen asics are being received and set right now. with hashrates rising. the cost of mining rises.
those playing the "which is cheaper mining:buying coins" will see that buying can be cheaper. thus raising the price when they buy

then asic miners see the price rise that gives them confidence to mine more. which causes more cost of mining. rinse and repeat the dynamic upwards
and the dynamic plays out.


in october last year(3 months ago) the dynamic played out the opposite way.
old gen asics sold dirt cheap made mining cheap so less were buying coin. and more were mining and then selling coin for profit. causing the november down slope. other miners were not as profitable so stopped mining. causing more drama

the mining:market dynamic has always been a thing since 2009, so keep an eye on that as a influencer this month