of a pegged token thats 12 decimals, on a different network, that can take over a year to get just america to vault up, to then get into ln
oh and by the way, america will want to get out, move things around. and shake things up.

so before over selling LN realise its limitations.
here are the devs themselves talk about its issues
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

and dont even try to say its a bitcoin transaction.. thats soo 2016
latest concepts of 2018 are factories. and channels using 12 decimal unconfirmed, non blockchain contracts that can cycle around without needing to broadcast back to the blockchain.

actually
maximum weight is 4mb but there is a secondary limit of maximum weight / witness scalefactor(4)
meaning there is a limit within the code of 1mb

this 1mb limit is a pre-requisite for transactions
it is where legacy transactions have been restricted to only be within.
and segwit transactions are semi restricted to being within.

segwit transactions do not get full free reign of 4mb. part of a segwit transaction is restricted to the 1mb limit
its only the signatures of a segwit transaction that get to sit outside the 1mb limit
so an average segwit transaction where signatures = half the data of a transaction would result in ~2mb blocks
but this is in a usecase of if every transaction in the 1mb base limit was segwit and where half the transaction data was its signature
EG
if the majority of transactions were legacy then only a few segwits would have their signatures outside the 1mb area
meaning expect less than 2x

so dont expect transactions to fill up the 4mb weight as a 'norm' .. as the 1mb area is still a pre-requisite and restricts full utility.

because LN is not involved with blockchains for the actual LN payments. its pretty much just human agreement.
humans can agree on receiving coin A for coin B. by just signing LN payments of such.

infact you can do that now without LN. without vaulting up coins

heres the funny part. some say bitcoin has issues and needs LN because bitcoin full nodes dont like the blockchain..
but guess what. LN will start having fullnodes (for factories) that monitor multiple coins. its funny because if a node is supposedly unable to handle 1 chain, but suddenly able to handle 2-4 chains... then obviously the argument against the 1 chain is an empty argument

its not about jumping blocksize from small to large over night.
its not about taking a decade to convince a dev to implement just a small teaser amount
its about progressive growth over time without needing devs to decide when
EG the block mining difficulty shifts depending on block events. without needing devs to decide what the difficulty should shift to

also leaning transactions down. some devs want to blot up transactions with lots of features and even have it where a block can be allowed to be filled with just 5 bloated transactions. bitcoin should be made more simplified.
if users want complicated privacy contract stuff, then they can use other networks but if bitcoin wants to be a straight forward digital cash, then keep it as simple as digital cash

imagine it this way.
im not going to talk about 7billion users..
ill just talk about 189million americans.. why.. well im just going to use the 189m americans that use VISAUSA.. yep im not going unrealistic with big numbers of 900million VISAGLOBAL. im just using realistic numbers

189m people. imagine they all want to deposit and vault up funds.

lets take the average transactions per block
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions
~250k a day
it would take 756days to just get 189m users into LN
and thats before counting all the users that want to get out move funds, refresh channels.

people within LN will not want to exit LN back to bitcoin in such a situation. they would end up atomic swapping to other payments and exiting to liteoin and other coins that have more scope.

this is why bitcoin needs to expand bitcoin and not just push people into LN as a way to avoid expanding bitcoin. because once on LN people wont want to return to bitcoin

to clarify

currency is an umbrella term it is top category
below that are forms of currency.
such as asset currency, national currency,commodity, personal, and so on

anything can be a currency.
yep cigarettes are a currency (to inmates in prison)
food and clothing are a currency (to homeless)
drugs are a currency(to addicts and prostitutes)
sexual favours are a currency (to women with sugar daddies and pimps and husbands)
vodka and beer are a currency ( to friends that do favours for each other)

things like cash are a sub category of currency
currency is not a sub category of cash

assets are a sub category of currency
currency is not a subcategory of assets

once you put the word currency onto paper and then do a spider diagram out for all the subcategories. you will see the big picture
its not a case of looking for the currency withiin the electronic cash. its the case of looking for the electronic cash within the term currency.
bitcoin simply added itself as another subcategory of currency..

nah

your parade of james admiration has actually revealed nothing appealing.

if james wanted notoriety he could do something himself.
but instead you made him into another craig wright (fake wannabe satoshi) and also called him out on some unsociable behaviours (being a nazi)

so you failed to prove the satoshi thing..
failed to win his love
failed to grow his credibility

isnt it time you just step back and realise that your goals have not been achieved

i am not dead against lightning. i understand its NICHE. but i am a realist who is happy to be loud enough to inform people of its negatives and limitations. i dont like the false advertising "this is a fluffy unicorn solution that will solve everything" over promise that keeps happening
here are the devs themselves admitting LN has issues. limitations, complications
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

as for lightning. calling it a bitcoin layer or a bitcoin feature is just propaganda sponsorship buzzwords to make investors think they are buying into bitcoin because a separate network is throwing the word bitcoin about ALOT(too often).
funny thing is like how blockstream throw in the word bitcoin to get investment.. but then try to downplay and say that the money they get from blockstream investors has nothing to do with bitcoin development
or how litecoin is bitcoins silver
or how circle is bitcoin service (though its actually a FIAT business)

LN is a separate network. if no bitcoiners used LN, LN would still function. as its a separate network that litecoin and vertcoin and other coins can already do and will continue to use no matter if bitcoin is popular or not.

research it. hint: chainhash
here ill even show you a few lines of code that LN is not a bitcoin feature but a separate network for different coins
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L580

also knowing it locks up coins on network is going to cause UTXO sets get locked up. which lets say just VISAUSA user numbers(not global) used LN. thats 189million UTXO locked for long time periods and not transacting onchain. which will strain fullnodes UTXO issues while fullnode users are then seeing 'empty blocks' leading to less people wanting to be full nodes

having empty blocks is not making bitcoin better, its making bitcoin worse because all it does is when pools want/need fee's to pay for mining. the fee's for the FEWER users remaining on bitcoins network will have to pay more to get a confirm.

again diverting people off network does not help the network.
oh and please dont even bother with the old myth of "gigabytes by midnight" is the only other solution to a non-LN situation
oh and please dont even bother with the old myth of to pay miners limitations are needed on the network to force users to pay more.
oh and please dont bother with the old myth that LN solves the problem for everyone. LN is for a niche of users that spam alot and often. not everyone spends every day so having to lock funds up, spread funds over channels and be online all the time just to get paid is not a benefit to them.

there are many ways. to ofset the spammers from the ones that wont benefit
here is one which doesnt cause every user on the bitcoin network needing an increasing average fee.
(EG current situation. if one person spams txs into a block everyone has to pay a higher fee to bribe a pool)

while also (unbiasedly) persuading the spam every block regular spenders who 'could' benefit from LN to then use it
as using the bitcoin network is costing just the spammers more


and lastly about lightning..
if you research into eltoo and read about the purpose of factories. to vault coins up(step 1) and then separately a step away from the blockchain create unconfirmed/unaudited payments.. which are then sent to users for users to use those as their channel open initial states(not blockchained UTXO)

this makes factories like the fortknox of gold then offering promissory notes.
the purpose then is to PREVENT USERS from just exiting back to bitcoins network. but instead hand back the unconfirmed updated initial state payment. to a factory. and the factory just give them new crisp unfolded payments to open channels.

meaning people are less able to individually just exit back to bitcoins network.. much like how banks done it with the gold/bank note business plan in the 18th century.. and we know how that played out

thunderdome: 2 may enter but only 1 may leave
LN factory: bitcoin and litecoin may enter but only litecoin may leave
banks: gold and silver may enter, but only silver may leave

yes factories are designed to reduce/prevent users broadcasting back to the bitcoin network.
you can dress it up in as many pink dresses and fluffy unicorns of how its a benefit. but atleast be open minded to the consequences.. after all banks done the fluffy unicorn promotions too about how returning back to gold was 'bad' and stayin with vaulted up gold while playing with unaudited payment methods was good

again i understand LN's NICHE utility for the few that may need it. but over selling LN as the utopia solution for all. and selling it as a feature of bitcoin.. is going too far. especially as those overselling LN are the ones saying bitcoin cant cope.. which leads to actually people prefering to leave LN using other coins.. thus not helping bitcoin

the thing is i see the big picture.
EG
issue: with bandwidth in relation to sending transactions so that users have them before a block is transmitted
reason: so that a block can be compact and users then dont need to grab transactions after compact block

instead of thinking of bigbox solutions that solve the whole issue. devs waste months and years on "exclusive" things that only handle a small offering, and only a offering for people who choose to use it. while not solving the broader big picture problem for the whole network

EG minisketch does not ensure nodes have every VALID transaction so that when a block arrives it can quickly validate a block without delay.
all because devs let users have configurable settings to play around and cause bottlenecks by being biased against certain transactions. thus ending up needing to retransmit transactions, causing delays in propagating blocks... all for the sake of 'user choice' which does affect other people (imagine the '8 degrees of separation theory' playing a game of chinese whispers)

if core want to be the defacto full node and network security offering the most efficient node that has least chance of block propagation latency.. then be a full node. take out all the funk that reduces a core node from being a full node. take out the user configurable stuff that can cause resends and latency. then you will find that resends and latency dont happen by default

if some users cant handle being a full node then they have the choice of electrum and other spv/litenodes
....
my other issue is how core devs dont want other teams to offer a full node option.. (unless the other team are actually colleagues/buddies)
take luke Jr's mandated follow core rules or get "f**k off" the network (UASF(it was actually a MCHF:mandated controversial hardfork)) or what greg would call a bilateral fork
take greg also loving the idea of hard forks if core dont get their way and others are trying to offer something different ON THE NETWORK


funny part about the whole 2016-17 saga is that if core actually went with a segwitx2. it would have activated segwit much sooner.. and without the august hard fork
funny part is all the drama of core pretending to delay things to avoid a hardfork, ended up with one happening anyway due to their one direction, push it till its forced, no consideration for the community, no compromise to find a middleground mindset

if core actually listened and actually compromised some of cores demands to meet communities wishes.. core would have got segwit sooner and the community would have got more legacy utility.

and last funny part. with the now 95% core dominance. there is no actual reason to keep the witness scale factor in play, as there is not a controversial enough diversity of nodes to cause issues.. i find it funny because the august 1st event could have ben utiiised better to get rid of the (hidden by witness scale factor) 1mb allowance area completely. thus letting both legacy and segwit actually both function and both have full access to upto 4mb..

but no.. they done a half assed job because they have a roadmap that goes against opening utility on the network, because they need people to move over to LN so that greg and lukes investors can make some returns

using a merchants physical technology (the NFC tap to pay card reader) yes its possible..
but here is some out of the box thinking

why does it need to be a plastic card that has to be sent through the mail box..
why not just use a phones NFC chip.

then a user has more control and can be set up and running just by downloading a wallet app on their phone that utilises 'tap to pay' (like applepay does) but while keeping the private key secure on the phone and only a signed tx is sent over NFC.

this then solves
1. no need to mail out cards (no user delay waiting for postman)
2. no need to produce cards (no cost to some business to offer such a thing)
3. no need to distribute cards (no cost to some business to offer such a thing)
4. user privacy (no delivery addresses, no concern user has that business has a copy of privkey before distribution)
5. user control using smart phone instead of trust using dumb plastic
6. smart phone is capable of creating signed tx unlike dumb plastic
7. tapping a smartphone is same as tapping plastic card, so shopping experience is the same at checkout

for me bitcoin is my personal offshore trust fund.

i didnt need to hire solicitors or accountants to set it up, i didnt need to sign contracts or declarations. i just bought some bitcoin.

many people who would love to have a trust but think all the legal stuff of fiat trusts is a turn off are starting to see how just buying bitcoin is the easiest way to create their own personal family trust and store funds away securely out of jurisdictional/taxable/financial rules

bitcoin is also my easy way to play markets. much easier than playing the penny stocks/forex. much more fun and dramatic too.

bitcoin is also my electronic cash where i use my profits to buy food, pay bills without getting bank statements or card statements in the mail.

its also better at privacy and security. i know people who shop using fiat and they get bombarded with jumkmail from the mailman with leaflets from businesses they frequent using their debit cards. meanwhile my mailbox happily just gets personal correspondance

using bitcoin i have never had to worry about things like bank robberies, visa hacks, paypal, amazon hacks. never needed to worry about card cloning, id theft. or other fiat concerns

they dont even need to buy coin
they just need to syndicate(pool) funds of many people into stakes of higher amounts combined. and then make blocks the way they want as they will get seen as higher staking authorities to solve more blocks.

syndicating funds is easier than pooling asics. and much easier than buying asics or buying stake.
a stake manager doesnt need a penny to his name and can start convincing people to pool their funds into his addresses

how people comprehend and how people reply have no correlation
i am very technical and can read things better than most.
but for years i downplay how i speak/reply to generally be as ELI-5 as possible and just word things as a common-folk average joe, mainly for the benefit of this forum as it is read by many people who may not be as technical.

i wont bother illustrating my knowledge and depths . as i dont need to kiss my own ass. i dont need to have my ass kissed and i dont need to kiss anyone elses ass. so i dont bother trying to tone my wording into something only those who socialise with the queen would say

plus you have still proved nothing in regards to "satoshi" but instead shot yourself in the foot many times.
all you have proven is a infatuation with another man
usually with the nazi type of people. an accusation of such usually results in a heated argument. but it seems you didnt want to deny it. or get aggressive at the mere accusation of such an idea.
ill leave others to take that subtle hint onboard as to what it infers

but anyway. the link i provided was me having a comedy moment about people that like cyphers and puzzles could easily make nick szabo out of satoshi nakamoto.. it was done just for fun. not for prove of identity

blockchain wallet app is not true bitcoin. its a service that uses bitcoins network
EG looking at a webpage is not the true internet. its just a page that uses the internet

saying using blockchains wallet app is easy.
is like saying looking at a webpage in1994 is easy.

but understanding the intricate details of how the internet actually works (DNS, ISP, IP, HTTP, FTP, SMTP) is the difference

people dont just want a flashy webpage that asks for credit cards. they actually want to know that its safe to shop online in the 1990's. they are worried about putting their funds/personal information out there onto the internet so they want to know about what http is as oppose to https and what makes https so much better.

same with bitcoin using a service is easy, but knowing if its secure.. they will want to know a little more then just the basics

now we really are going off subject. but he pokes, so ill bite. i know he had me on ignore for along time so i guess he has alot on his chest he wants to cough up.. just a pitty that the issues raised are concerning bitcoin code. which he is involved in thus he cant really blame me for bitcoin flaws that he and his his team dont want to fix, or he and his team have caused to sway people away from bitcoin...

but anyway

but do you want to know a real funny thing. something you tripped up with when you said impossible to let in ~9000 inputs
into a block pre segwit... here it is.. your words
block 367853
Mined on    2015-08-01
Transaction count    12,239
Input count    13,176
Output count    12,917

year 2015=legacy block = pre segwit(2017)

but i do find it funny you shot yourself in your own foot with your own ammo.. by saying legacy couldnt handle it,, but then display it could... comedy gold..

EDIT: actually because of the comedy above of shooting yourself in the foot. ill actually give you a merit

anyway
i knew about that block and tx count.. secondly i dont deal with utopian single use case fluffy clouds. hense why i only mentioned the 7tx/s more rational numbers of rational usage and i broadened it to a 600k tx a day
because in reality people dont rely on single case examples. they prefer average expectations of real possible utility

and yes individual transactions is an indicator of individual users... batched transactions is an indicator of foolish people trusting funds to exchanges/middlemen and services.. so yea. i prefer to measure bitcoin by its transaction count
..

so since 2015.. when you first made the roadmap.. knowing what bitcoin was capable of (your own gunshot above) what have devs actually done to get passed a rational 600k a day tx expectation..
and please please dont refer to features that are purposed to divert people off the network

batching transactions was a thing even back in 2015 and before that........ so.. nothings different.


1. i learned that ages ago that your ready to retire. which is why people should care more about bitcoins network security rather than devs. devs retire, devs move onto different projects, devs get bored.
too many people think your immortal and will be around forever. fact is even you have to admit you wont be,
you already semi retired when you left(well you announced you left) blockstream
.. devs move on retire, get old, have medical issues. get bored.. many reasons to not depend on a dev and only depend on network security.
.. just like satoshi, just like hal, just like many other devs... your not the first, and you wont be the last.
holding you up as an immortal god that will last forever.. caring more about you then network security of a global system is not in peoples interest.

2. your interests are not bitcoins network interests. or the communities interests. you made that clear by saying many things over many years about how things should not be fixed and left for users to deal with the consequences, users should just fork off, and many other things
 you guys even have the cowardice to still 9+ years on to call it an experiment. a betatest, a 0.x version. and to pretend at any community event to be just janitors when it comes to community desires, but then suddenly maintainers, chief technical officers of "the reference" "the core" when it comes to feature you want

3. i dont get paid to shill. i dont get paid to kiss ass. if anyone tried to pay me to change my opinion i would laugh at their attempts. even if someone tried to twist my words and then attempt to make a 25btc bet with me to prove a word twist, id just laugh at them. because they are the ones that are failing.

my income is from investments i made from 2012 and i am happy. i get to travel the world. some may think that because im posting night and day means i have some sleep problem due to bitcoin issues. when infact its simply me adjusting to different timezones

4. as for your actions i learned early on. you set yourself a goal of a one way street one direction future for bitcoin.. well not a street. lets call it a roadmap.
this roadmap is leading to getting people to mve their funds into locked vaults (issue: many more UTXO locked for longer periods than expected, while reducing the number of tx counts onchain).. just to push people into using a different network which is using th same business model as banks did in the 18th century in regards to gold

the thunderdome: 1 gold may enter 100 silver may leave... oops sorry i admit that was a misquote.. but close enough to hint at the lightning business plan compared to banking

5. and before you continue coding features not designed for network security, but for privacy of certain users..that WILL bloat transactions further.. yea i know u want to keep witness scale factor in play to hide how much bloat that feature will add to hard drives

ill say this
removing users ability to transparently audit bitcoins value.(confidential transactions) might look like a user convenience for the privacy conscious. but from a network security/audit prospective.. it just turns into a ledger of data it cant audit.
i know you'll say thats the point of your TX bloating 'payment codes'.. oops i mean commitments.. but it just makes the archived data just a ledger of useless data to the decentralised world.
things like that lead to people thinking, whats the point in being a full node

so instead of telling the community to go fork off oops lets use your words bilateral fork
so instead of telling the community alternative networks offer more than the bitcoin network does

how about actually stop pretending you care about bitcoin. and actually care about it. or man up and put your concentration to the real projects you care more about, like the alternative network known as lightning.. which i know you want because your investors ($101m) will want to get some returns on their investment. and yes. although you announced you left as a CTO, we all know deep down your still tied to it

satoshi emailed hal finney and they bug fixed a few things.. satoshi published an address..
no where does it say that hal actually paid satoshi anything
there was no obligation

infact i know people on this forum who spammed their address for years and never got a donation
presenting an address does NOT = getting paid/demand of payment
hal never said he ever paid satoshi.

the only reason that address started getting funds in 2014 is because the private emails got leaked. and suddenly the public wanted to donate to satoshi..

and lastly. NS = nakamoto satoshi
yes i know some people started rumours of Nick Szabo

i even said though its not nick.. i then done something that someone like you (if you beleived it was nick) would have found interesting
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322765.msg13515701#msg13515701

put the shoe on the other foot.. think outside your echo chamber box of fluffy clouds and utopia

i guess devs who pretend to care about network and user security are comfortable with not caring about the network and security. letting users who are not technical unintentionally make transactions that others can modify,. and then just saying its upto the users to deal with the consequences themselves....

no consequence to others?
.. block latency/propagation delays for their peers..
...only getting transactions relayed if you pay more just to get your peers to relay/retain your transaction
...peers need to send transactions more then once due to the other person dropping..



*chicken or #egg.. choose one then stick with it.. which came first?

im laughing..
people who RBF DONT lower the fee for the second(replacement) tx...
they increase the fee as a bribe to blockcreators to include the second tx with the greater fee and drop the first one with the lower fee.
i do laugh that you think malleators would even try to do RBF using a lower fee replacement....

seriously. im laughing now.
you really do try to downplay things and hide issues under the rug.

the mindset is comedy
1. let users deal with consequences
2. theres a big picture flaw but this feature wont solve it, its "exclusive" to only reduce potentially a small amount of change
3. offering choice is a users problem
4. devs cant solve the issue its impossible

whats really infuriating to you, is that some people just wont be sheep and kiss asses then just bite their lip
i know you want to be a founders, a team leader, a chief, a boss, a top guy because you dont like having people to answer to and dont like having people tell you when your not doing your job properly..
.. but welcome to the real world

and no your not on your last chicken nugget with no money left so are wanting to hear violins.
everyone knows your well paid. so dont play the victim card

last time i checked you could actually broadcast an ancester and broadcast a child and a blockcreator would include the ancester and child in the same block
thus the child that has funds originating from the ancester doesnt need to wait for a confirm(separate block)

all the block creator would do is make sure the child was listed after the ancestor in the same block. and it would be treated as valid

last time i checked 3169 transactions was not more than the 4200tx of 7tx/s
last time i checked 3169 transactions didnt need 1.7mb
last time i checked 1.7mb for ~3200tx is not hard drive efficient transacting (over 500bytes average per transaction (facepalm))

last time i checked the whole 7tx/s capability. =604ktx a day
we have not had a single day of more that 600k... allthough the fluffy unicorns will promote 4x weight is now achievable........
oh and dont try with the 'theres no demand' pfft. there have been many days of mempools being above average and people waiting more then one block.. but last time i checked even in them situations we didnt get a single day above a 600k tx day

come on wheres the utupian fluffly cloud of upto 24,000tx a day
.. go on admit it. the witness scale factor limits actual full utility of 4mb weight, due to how transactions are fully(legacy) and partially(segwit) still limited to a 1mb limit hidden from being called a 1mb base block due to the wishy washy code of witness scale factor

come on wheres the utupian fluffly cloud of upto 24,000tx a day
.. go on admit it. even if everyone was to only use segwit transactions the expectation would be only a 2.5x utility average

you failed to understand the malleability problem
though this is offtopic... and i know im being poked by an obvious fan groupy based on certain terms you use, ill bite
you said:
i replied
you said
so even when you as an exchange use a specific format... i can still malleate a tx to you
maybe go do some research.. you know... google

hint, its not about confirmed transactions. never was about confirmed transaction.. never has been about confirmed transactions.
if you want to argue and say there never was a problem then take that up with the devs who obviously thought there was a problem for them to do what they did and promote what they did.

also lightning network is not a layer two feature of bitcoin.
its a completely separate network that allow multiple different coins to get locked up and then people get to play around on this other network.

its not scaling bitcoin network. its diverting people away from using the bitcoin network.
might be worth you doing research beyond the utopian dream promotional material

...
lets get some things straight here.
for people to be on this forum means they have already heard about bitcoin and crypto.. after all they didnt magicly just gt dropped into the forum.

they dont need the wishy washy only positive advertising of utopian dreams and empty promises.. they want to know what is really going on.. both good and bad.

i understand there is a group of people that only want to overpomise and fluffy cloud unicorn stuff with positive chatter.. but thats just not really doing much because to read that stuff here in the forum is advertising to people that already been advertised to.

people want to know whats beyond the fluffy clouds

if you actually google

the email was actually

so timestamp... your proven wrong
sources:
https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakamotoemails.pdf