bitcoin is code. so its developers you should be scrutinising

^ selective usage of words

"not controlled by the state" yet the upgrade proposals and new code is controlled by a group.
and if the community do not follow the group. the group wont care because the group bypasses the community with "compatibility" and if the community added code that makes the group unable to bypass using "compatibility" then the group simply mandate a "accept group rules or f**k off" method

bitcoins 2009-2013 true consensus mechanism has not been used as intended since

altcoins are created because teams that are not core are not being allowed to add their proposals for upgrades to bitcoins network because they dont fit cores roadmap

what should have happened was teams allowed to run their nodes on the bitcoin network, make their proposals and if a consensus is formed, then the network upgrades to the new features..
if there is no consensus. then so be it, back to the drawing board and find a new community acceptable feature

 but no, any non-core proposals end up in rekt campaigns or get challenged to f**k off so that core can remain the dominant power where by core even get to have their devs and friends make mandated rules that coerce and bypass consensus to ensure core rules do get activated. even if it means f**king off opposers by splitting the network to fake a consensus count in cores favour

blah blah blah

all i see is doublespend talk about a possible social life of estonia, san fransisco and canada.
and then using the jabowery account where he talks to himself(doublespend) by promoting how double spend is on some radar and popular and important and may have been satoshis second recipient.

yawn

seems double spend aka jabowery is trying to play a fame game. talking about all the fame and social life stuff
but providing no bitcoin proof

we dont care about possible social life drama of incarcerations, deportations and alcohol fuelled parties in san fran..
or pretend unprovable skype calls to yourself at unprovable dates.

you can scream "i know who he is, hes my friend" for years. proves nothing. your just trying to play the fame game. self promoting yourself as 2 characters hoping atleast one of the characters gets famous

the link mentions lightning network.. so lets explain ALL the proposals
[tl:dr;
none of these help increase the tx/s ONCHAIN. all they do is add new features but reduce the impact of the new features to try to prevent a drop in tx/s]


1. lightning network
this is a SEPARATE NETWORK for ANY compatible coin to use. it works by locking up any compatible coin as a unspendable UTXO for a time period on the coins network and requires co-signing by someone else.
LN is not a bitcoin feature. bitcoin had to become LN compatible. not LN had to become bitcoin compatible

on the separate network it will require masternodes to be online and monitor multiple chains to ensure channels that allow atomic swaps to have 'trust' that funds from different chains are remained locked while channels play with 12 decimal values that are unconfirmed/unaudited.
LN is not about scaling bitcoin. its about taking utility away from the bitcoin network to cough give relief cough to bitcoin by having less users using the bitcoin(other coins too) network(s)
LN does not help the transactions per second scaling in bitcoin, it take transactions out of the bitcoin network

2. mast. this is where certain utxo get locked unless certain conditions are met.
usually involves bloating up a transaction with alot of script. thus reducing the tx/s but mast uses secondary transactions to spend the first transaction when condition is met. there is still a bit more bloat than average per tx and still if you add up the child and parent transaction together still end up being alot of bytes used combined to make value spendable... but does not help the tx/s scale up
merkelised syntax tree's are just buzzwords which means it simply tries to avoid making the tx size average for the last ~10 years become a bloated higher number. by requiring a child transaction
but does not help the transactions per second scaling in bitcoin, its to try to avoid less tx/s when people use smart contracts

3. schnorr. similar thing to mast. it doesnt help increase tx/s it simply tries to avoid the average transaction size becoming more bloated transactions of new formats, by cutting down the signature bloat. again not helping to increase tx/s but does avoid a reduction of tx/s when new smart contracts are added

4. sidechains. again like LN involves locking up funds on bitcoin network to then make transactions on another chain. again it will require masternodes to monitor both chains. but does not help increase tx/s throughput of bitcoins mainnt. it simply pushes utility off the mainnet.

5. bulletproofs tries to hide how much is being spend. though this ends up opening possible bugs of fungibility and requiring trust of fund origins rather than a transparent audited ledger. it also does increase the computational processing of such transactions which is not helpful if suddenly everyone used it. as the propogation times of rlaying a block would increase even if the tx count is the same

6. confidential transactions is another way to hide how much value is spent but does require large scripts bloated to a tx. the core devs simply think that segwit done its job right by not having to count the scripts. yet to a CPU and a hard drive that do actual processing they do actually see and process the bloat.

summary
none of these help increase the tx/s ONCHAIN. all they do is add new features but reduce the impact of the new features to try to prevent a drop in tx/s although we have already seen that transaction bytes have increased and average tx/s has decreased (satoshi said in 2009 if we stick with lean 1in 2out tx we can have 4200 tx a block (7tx/s)
with new features SO FAR we are averaging only 1750 tx a block (3tx/s)
these features want to avoid bloating the network to not become under 3tx/s or take transactions off the network completely so that those that want to stay transacting onchain can continue with the 3tx/s average

those that bought s9's this time last year.($2000 an asic) got enough coin to cover electric and hardware by easter and
from easter onwards they were then only having to cover electric. thus even now they are in profit

those that bought s9's around easter time($850 an asic) got enough coin to cover electric and hardware by august.
from august onwards they were then only having to cover electric. thus even now they are in profit

those that bought s9's around august time ($450 an asic) have not yet got enough to get returns on the hardware
and are crying right now

but. thats because the average ROI is 5 months(now extended to 7 months) so them august crybabies would not have broken even until february even without the downturn in hash/price

alot of people are also crying because they didnt get ROI to cover the new S15 which are $1450 an asic

...
but anyways wait for the end of december delivery and watch the hashrate and then the price rise

i am laughing
do you think bitmain is selling that guy rigs CHEAPER that bitmain themselves get them for......
LOL
hey dude bitmain have NO hardware cost.
every rig sold atleast 2 are built. one goes to customer, another bitcoin keep.
all bitmain need to do is cover electric.
which because they contract the electric they will get better deals than a guy renting some storage locker

what the guy in the video doesnt realise is that a S15 uses 1.6kwh for 28thash
the guy himself is using s9 which is 1.3kwh for 14thash
simple math
1.6/28=0.057
1.3/14=0.093

the guy is using 93watt per thash
bitmain is using 57watt per thash

bitmain uses less electric. =less cost
as i said earlier bitmain get free asics(they make them)
the guy however had to buy them AND had to wait weeks to even receive what he bought=less profit

what they guy does not realise is these 5 things.
1. bitmain are cash rich from selling old asics. selling new asics and contracts of handing mined coins OTC
2. bitmain dont want to ramp up hashrate as thats just shooting themselves in the foot.
3. to add onto point 2. bitmain dont want to ramp up to avoid drama of "bitmain has too much %
4. although bitmain could swap 80 old s9 for 40 s15 and stay at same hashrate. they know they can go down to 30 and still mine a healthy amount of blocks.
5. so the facility(one of many) that would normally handle 10 of 80 capacity is now being used as the QA test facility while the other facilities are running 30 s15 instead of 70 s9

right now their priority is not mining blocks. as i said they are cash rich. they just want to turn some S15 on for long enough to QA test them and then swap them out ready to shipnext week. so thats why the hashrate is not super high

many developers are trying to make smart contracts that hide things like who actually signs. and how much value each party gets.
i can understand it from a privacy against competition.
but in a blockchain world where auditing funds is essential for security of currency, fungibility and stability of trust of circulation. that hiding too much from the network of auditors leads to issues of weak links where bugs can occur and money creation outside of mining can occur.

also with smart contracts by not knowing who signed what or not knowing if an address you are depositing into is truly a 2of 2 and not a hidden 2of 3 where your counter party has 2 keys and you only have one would leave you at a disadvantage. again i understand the preference to reduce bytes of signatures. but to have no way of knowing how many are signers pre-post funding.. is not a good fair "contract"

yes banks as just custodians is not where banks profit.
they profit from creating cash X via signed promissory notes(bonds, mortgage agreements and credit cards) where people then pay them x+y.

they create X and get back at a later date X+Y. and the person who signed the agreement spends X and then has to work to earn X+Y to ensure they dont end up losing out on what they spend X on

banks never lose because the initial X is a zero cost game to them.
the only cost banks have is people and systems that feed off the latter X+Y when it returns back to them. which they now want blockchains to manage so that they can sack lots of staff, cut down on servers needed and let their blockchains do the auditing so that the X+Y they get back is pure profit.
thus no upfront cost and no latter cost

im not talking about current education system of butts on seats, shut up and listen to teacher schooling.
im talking about practical work skills education system.

EG teenagers WORK is education
adults WORK in on the job training and upskilling for promotion/payrise

take nurses and doctors. spending 3-10 years training to specialise in their medical profession earn enough credit to give them a good salary. where the funds unlock if their shown as employed

this would take out the whole debt/banking issues. and innovate the education/work skills area.
people will then want to work harder and get promotions which means retraining/upskilling themselves to accumulate more scholastic credit to earn a promotion and get to unlock their spendable credit

im thinking more about improving civilisation where each and everyone has a chance to earn,.. if they put effort into it

kingscorpio:
here is a novel concept..

imagine instead of banks creating money by getting loan applicants to sign a promissory note to magic up new credit as fresh cash..(PoS)

imagine instead of farmers creating money by mining the ground for assets to sell as fresh cash..(PoW)

imagine a world where the education system creates money by students studying real work skills and their grades(scholastic credit) became the cash that they could spend.
EG the better you study/better grade you got the more cash you get.

thus then removes a whole education sector out of needing a government tax treasury. because the education sector becomes self funding.

mature adult bitcoiners dont say it.
is the teenagers who read old posts that they can get near free bitcoin using their desktop computer who then find out they read an outdated article because now bitcoin needs specialist machines.

in short its teenagers that are butt hurt because their moms complain about the electricity bill
funny part is. if bitcoin went back to CPU mining. todays 32xahasn would need trillions. yep i said it trillions of CPU's

people dont realise that an asic is multiple million times more efficient than a CPU

since october when the hashrate decline of pools getting ready for the next gen ASIC switchover began. profitability changed those unable to obtain bitcoin cheaply through mining stopped and those who could carry on have. and now they get a bigger slice of rewards due to less competition. thus they can sell more cheaply

there is a market/mining dynamic that plays out as a result. no one wants to sell for less than cost. and everyone is looking for the cheapest way to obtain bitcoin. so there is a correlation between mining and the markets.

just watch for when (not a temporary hourly/daily average) a weekly/monthly average of hashrate rises. and you will see the market follow

looking at the most efficient mining. (i done the math to make it easy) take the hashrate and multiply it by 104 and you will find the dynamic number of minimum mining cost / minimum bitcoin sell value
its not a hard rule as sometimes you get the odd early adopter/panic seller that wishes to push beyond that. but after that temporary event, the early adoptor/panic seller no longr has their coin so they cant re-push the price using coins they no longer have,
but in general you will see the dynamic play out where by the price stays at or above the 104 multiple of exahashes

take right now ~32exa *104=3328........ current price ~3400

this correlation has been well known for 8+ years
heres hal finneys first ever post on the forum talking about it in 2010

the dynamic exists because if mining is too profitable miners sell. bringing down the price.
the dynamic exists because if mining is too expensive people just buy. bringing up the price.

people will always find the cheapest way to get bitcoin. and people avoid selling bitcoin at a loss. so price staying around the cost of mining has shown a correlation even 8 years later

i think you dont understand what communist really means

communist is centralist.
capitalist is where rich aristocratics get the hands on communist money
socialist is where the civilians get the hands on the communist money

libertarian is decentralist
capitalist is where the rich benefit the most from lack of central control
socialist is where the civilians benefit the most from the lack of central control

so break it down
1. your capitalist aristocratic, one brand one currency. sounds like you want a communist:capitalist organisation running things
2. your civilisation of fair, non racist, open, no barrier system sounds like you want a libertarian:socialist open world running things

answer simply 1 or 2 which is your preference more aligned with

there already is a capitalist/aristocratic systems.
they are called banks

you say bitcoin was not made for a civilisation but for a market.
im sorry to inform you but bitcoins 2009-2013 ethos was for a civilisation, where socialist/libertarian groups wanted something that was different than the capitalist/aristocratic banks.

yet 2013+ bitcoin lost its socialist/libertarian civilisation ideologies and and became the capitalist market mindset

asking for a capitalist/aristocratic thing is exactly what your getting with bitcoin. recently. and guess what, its not making bitcoin better. its slowed things down. by being "conservative" (delaying innovation) and twisting bitcoin by telling the public that blockchains dont work and that the only options are locked up funds in co-signed addresses that are unaudited by the community.

here is what bitcoin community really needs to do to stop being so market driven and get back to a change in civilisation.

1. stop saying bitcoin is a waste of electricity as it is like saying breathing is a waste of oxygen. bitcoin is digital. meaning electric. if you want something that doesnt 'waste' electric then go make paper and complain that its a waste of trees. or make a physical labour barter system and complain that its a waste of sweat.
bitcoin does not waste electricity. it has been proven that even if you believe 50% of mining is in china. screw it lets just call it 100% to really exaggerate things.. the 100% of mining is using up under 10% of the UNUSED electric production that is above demand/consumption of just china
at bitcoins peak. 40twh is bitcoins usage a year.
china alone consumes 5600twh. but produces 6500twh. that 900twh goes to waste unused.
bitcoin at max of 40twh world wide buys the waste electric and uses it. think of it like vegetables that dont get sold, that would end up going to landfill. a bitcoin grocer buys that excess veg and feeds on it. thus less veg go to landfill
out of china alone bitcoin at its peak was only using 40tw of 5600 consumption. which is less than 1% of only china.
to give you prospective
you will actually find that cocacola alone uses more electric than bitcoin just to keep bottles and cans of cola chilled.. should you do the research

2. stop thinking bitcoin just needs one dev team heading up the rule decision process, because that mindset is centralist mindset. vetting rule proposals and vetoing anyone that opposes that single teams vision is not a way to grow a civilisation, but a way of growing an tyrannical government should that team become political, which i think your suggesting that a crypto become political.

3. its more reliable then other payment systems. other payment systems have chargebacks. require ID to authorise payments. require bank managers to authorise payments over $500, limit spending amounts, requires people to manually process and observe transactions. bitcoin is a clear open self audit system that does not take 3-5 days to settle. and does not still have risks of chargebacks after settlement.
yes its not perceived as being "quick". but that could have been sorted with a few lines of code to ensure that transactions are not open to a free market of letting pools capitalise on which transactions to let in. but instead have a transaction priority of a first come first serve bases

trying to assume a capitalist / aristocracy model works is like saying lets just make banks be banks, because they already are a capitalist/aristocratic system.
if you just want to evolve the old banking system to being crypto. then go research hyperledger

meanwhile we should concentrate on bring bitcoin back out of the 2014+ agenda of being capitalist/aristocratic and make it more civilised open community of no barrier of entry, no centralist, no permissioned(co-signed) mindset it once was pre 2014

again you seem to be trying to advertise LN.

a separate network that allows multiple coins to use that network all under one brand...
but without it being a blockchain itself there are many issues:

1. nodes need to be more than just channel managers. by also running a full node to monitor the vaulted coins movements onchain
2. with so many coins being allowed nodes end up having to monitor multiple chains. to then play off-chain
3. in a non blockchain payment system there is no byzantine generals solution
4. this makes way for master factory nodes to monitor the different chains and they become the watchtowers that get final signoff so that people dont have to self monitor everything and just become litewallet users that trust the watchtower factory

and now we are back to the 18th-19th century era of banking

if your now going to revise your concept. to be less LN and more separate chains that sidechain directly together. there still ends up with needing master nodes to monitor the ins and outs of both sides.
by which. if these master nodes need to monitor both sides. why have both sides. you might aswell just have 1 side with double capacity blocks

there is already 2000 coins who try to want to replace some other system.
replacing a system is just upgrading the old system, but not solving the problem.

banks are "cooperative" they have layers of foundations. and at the bottom later engaging in local infrastructure.

now wash all your buzzwords away and use common speak to describe what you would actually want. as it seems right now your just trying to throw out as many buzzwords as you can to make a sentance but not actually getting out a design plan of a network you want to see.

OP is a troll formally known as bitcoinpro. a mega drug taker and pops up now and again to cause drama.

foolish thing is the transaction of the 10 coins.. that was between satoshi and hal finney.
seems the OP cant even get the basics correct.

funny part.
i think OP is james and is trying to self promote himself as being satoshi
im guessing next OP will probably think he can full circle the subterfuge by posting a tweet using his(james) twitter to say "i am satoshi"

you can chance the banking computer systems.
you can change their data base for a crypto that limited to x coins

but a bank would simply create bank altcoin that represent different bonds and different asset classes and things end up as the same thing.

just look at bitcoin. the bankers are already trying to say everyone into thinking blockchains cant scale and the only move forward is to lock funds up and use non blockchain bank-esq business models

LN is to crypto, what banks gold promissory notes were to the 18th century shift from gold to paper money
(LN flaw channel partners not always alive/awake/online.. solution. have a HQ watchtower factory to manage channels where they get final signoff on all broadcasts to unlock the vaults)

them making their own crypto is meaningless.. its just them declaring they are changing their database for a cheaper maintenance version. the laws remain the same. moving funds into banks 'accounts' (co-signed multisgs) will involve identifying yourself