we have already seen like 3 jumps into the $8k(40% up) range. and none of them held. we need to see hashrate rises that outpace asic manufacturers selling hardware at lower prices.
the end result is that if the price to mine is more expensive than the price to buy. people would prefer to buy.
(this spins the wheels of pushing up the value and price. which then makes mining profitable. that then keeps the hashrates going up, which then if unprofitable makes people wanna buy coin. and repeat repeat repeat)
.. this is happening slowly. and hopefully the latest asic batch prices are the bottom discount. so now the hashrate push will cause the reaction of shifting new entrants away from mining with new batches of asics and instead buying coin. and then as the wheels turn it raises the support where everyone will refuse to sell at 6100 6300 and so on. so that the prices dont go to previous lows and instead the waves of speculation PRICE go into $7k and VALUE moves up the $6k. and it just continues up
...
acquiring coin through the markets or via mining is the balancing act of shifting the support line which is all based on the cost of acquiring coin. and although the market is unpredictable, the mining side is more predictable and measurable. as its easy to cost out a btc via mining. even a few weeks before new entrant miners use their rigs because the price they pay for the rigs and the electric needed is all specified at asic sales pages weeks before a miner takes delivery to use them

distributed ledger technology is just the small niche of closed source company run blockchains.
its not a term for blockchains as a whole

distributed ledgers also dont limit themselves to one long stream of data. but smaller chains of data. that chain to larger chains
EG
a bank branch has a ledger of 5000 users.. and a neighbouring towns bank branch has a ledger of 5000 users. and its the banks reserves of each branch are then relationship linked(chained) to an an entry of a main chain that only accounts the reserves
meaning its multisidechain network

 some call that "sharding". but is just the same as banking.

distributed ledgers such as this are not blockchain 2.0.. but normally blockchain minus 0.1

its over bought?
nope. its not over bought its at actually a good low level to buy.

the daily/weekly waves are normal speculation.. 5-10% speculation price is normal..
we are not in the Tsunami speculation wave season of last winter. which was 400%-1000% compared to last summer

we are currently in normal expected calm waters of this years higher natural underlying value waterline but this topic is trying to make people believe that stagnant waterline is the norm.. where waves should not exist at all.. (facepalm)

even fiat see's movements in price which dont cause damage or seen as inflation

seems the article writer has limited knowledge and is trying to put stuff together to sound good, but misses the point.

i did read the article. but the first paragraph gave me pause enough to make me want to facepalm and not bother.
as soon as the word marketcap is mentioned you instantly know they have not looked at the full scope of the economy

..
delving deeper
using unique addresses is flawed too. because that just as bad as saying someone has 100 separate pennies instead of a single $£1. or is wearing pants with more than 2 pockets.. it doesnt really help.

my view
what should have been used is the UTXO of the COINS moved. not the transactions moved..
looking over the last 10 or so months to know when coins move, the value they attain at that movement is of the price at the date of that movement. because people measure the value when moving/swapping coins.. over 65% of all coins in circulation moved when prices were over $5,800 thus over 70% value coins at over $5800

this compared to last year is a healthy rise of underlying value.
its too early to call a new number in the $6k range as the $5.8k has been recently tested.. but at the same time the recent test adds more wight, as the price got tested before that and before that again. the more retests without breaking the line. so that also adds substance to the value

then there is mining costs.
although more variable. at the summers ASIC price of $850 per asic and prior to that 1250+ per rig. calculating the majority low cost of electric savvi miners use. has shown a healthy +$5800 of multiple months cost is healthy meaning they wont sell for less.

however this month ASICs (limited stock though so not much impact) are selling for $440 an asic. which would mean by the time people get delivery the hashrate should be around 65exa hash to keep a mining cost of latest limited supply batchs above the $5800 cost. but while below that hashrate, meaning lower cost per btc mining for those lucky few that buy cheaper rigs. their impact vs the millions of existing rigs that cost more wont be much to influence value below $5800 as they first have to fight the waves above $5800 of miners with higher costs and users swapping coins of higher cost.. and so instead would just continue the waves of this natural 5-10% up and down movement above the waterline

but as i said not enough time has passed to raise the waterline value of about $5800 and no pressure of new participant miners to price it down... so its just normal wave movements.

but once hashrates are above 65exa september mining new batches wont be a down pressure at all(thse batches havent even got delivered until october, so no downward pressure yet. and as i said no downward pressure want rxahash high enough to make them nw rigs have a higher cost to mine. so relax)

summary bottom line value at a healthy $5800 with natural waves of 5-10% above the waterline

1. the opcode. the devs already know about it. its no secret. but you seem to not know. although many hints were given for you to DYOR

2. the anyonecanspend (separate issue) the devs found the work around. once it finally twigged on them that it was an issue,
again the hints are there its no secret infact the work around become highly visable.. if you knew.

but it seems your not getting the hints.
you dont want me to spoon feed you.. i get that
you want to ignore me.. fine hit that ignore button.
 or atleast DYOR
i know you dont like people telling you to learn
but if you are so adamant to not want to get information from me. then im not going to spoon feed it to you.(bite the hand that feeds you. you stop getting fed) leaving the only option as for you to DYOR

ill just leave it for others who can see the hints to do their research and become aware.
i tried being nice, i even tried to be subtle. but this has just got to a point where all you wanna do is sling mud.

as for the opcode.. well the devs do know of that issue. its no secret. but you have already been given enough hint to DYOR and i have asked you to DYOR but you just wanna sling mud. so no more hints for you

so go have a nice day.

1. a blockchain doesnt need to be fast for very purpose. and can be made faster and more efficient without needing to step away from blockchains.
2. it can be efficient with the right devs that want to care about blockchain efficiency coding it instead of saying it cant be made efficient
3. a blockchain can be free to run.

i feel that your bias's against blockchains have become more apparent. and im starting to wonder why you post on a forum that uses blockchains as its main security model.

when you stop imagining a blockchain as a one dimensional strand. and instead view it 3 dimensionally

EG imagine a doctors surgery of 6000 patients has a chain of hashes. the personal data not being the chain. but being a UTXO database of encrypted data. and each new block of daily updated records is updating hashes. not clear text data.

each doctors surgury strand of chain. hass a block or UTXO header that gets added to a master chain. and so the network is not validating what the clear text says. but validating the hashes add up.
and its the doctors and patients in their smaller subchains that validate that personal stuff

it also helps so that its not one massive chain of a nations patient records. but subchains that regions/townships manage at sublevels.

nope your not even close

i would give you a subtle hint but all i see is that you put noinput into critical issues. apart from insults.
so keep researching, keep learning. and when it dawns on you. then you can atleast be at peace that you found out about it without me, and maybe you will accept it

to explain it all involves the whole big 3 decade debate of decentralised money and how the whole 2009 blockchain solution called bitcoin became such a big hit as it solves the problem of decentralised money.

after all if 2 party channels could work where people could leave LN nodes open indefinitely and use factories to recycle funds all off chain to take funds out of channels at close and put in new channels without broadcasting back to a blockchain... then blockchains are never needed.. which brings back the 3 decade debate about the whole point of blockchains. and if satoshis revolution was ever needed..

seems a few think that once inside LN its utopia. and blockchains were never needed and never will be needed again as factories(larger mutlisigs) are the solution satoshi should have come up with in 2008-9

its like the oldest and longest debate of all in regards to digital distributed/decentralised money
(requires long explanation.)

. but knowing theres a few people here who just ignore the content. and just here to insult and put finger in ears.. its probably best most people take the subtle hints and DYOR(do own research) and play around with LN (even on testnet) as they wont be happy being told the issues by people that are not in their circle of friends

hre we go again. distracting the conversation again away from LN flaws.....


then go back and learn about the NYA


here you go again treating lightning as a feature of bitcoin and part of the bitcoin network...
by talking about
"layers" (facepalm)
with so many calling lightning layer 2 is the same crap as years ago when people called NXT bitcoin 2.0

LN is not a layer
LN is separate network. ("chainhash"is asking for any chain of coins. its not locked to monitor bitcoin.)
EG. what if i said ripple was bitcoins layer 2.. i bet you would scream that it aint.


you think people have to like the rules for things like mandated activation and node bans and block reject threats to push an agenda..... (facepalm)
sorry but nope. 2017 ploy was not to like the rules but you give no other choice but accept it or to go "f**k off to another network"

i know i know.. i expect the usual reply social drama narrative that "blah blah it was bitcoin cash that forked"..
but no thats is you rewriting history. you might want to check the blockchains. it was segwit that initiated a change first.. and enforced the node ban and block reject protocol. cash wasnt created until hours later.

and here is the reason i want you to actually go learn things. because i am not your mom that should spoon feed you.
you dont want to listen anyway and you dont even care what is being said. so the only way you will learn and accept things is if you actually go use them and learn for yourself.

again i get it you dont want me telling you things. so why keep asking just to then stick your head in the sand and shout insults.. maybe try using the things your questioning and learn first hand if you hate second hand input so much

anyway this topic just shows alot of the usual suspects wanting a social drama session.

now those that do want to know the flaws can go use LN and experience them themselves.. i would say read code. but many treat that as me attacking them

so until those that want to reply about LN flaws have actually used LN.. you might want to try using LN first so that you can atleast start to understand conversations about LN.. unlike some who just prefer to cause social drama, but just hitting reply to just argue and insult and not address LN issues

how about instead of letting them argue. lets set some clear definitions ourselves.
EG
1. if a token is created that has allotment of tokens to hand prior to public release and/or announcement. that company/entity group is acting under a security concept

2. if a token network cannot be seen as having an entity group/company that controls upgrades or initial coin release recipients due to it being so diverse and open to public involvement. it is not a security concept

3. if a token is created to raise funds for a company/entity group. and not created solely to be an open spirited network for anyone to utilise then its a security

feel free to add or edit

anyway back to talking about the flaws. and hopefully no more insulting social distraction attempts.

look into the opcodes. they even want to rename an opcode to make it visibly shown its a risk(hint. its a risk for one and secondly reintroduces malleability)
look into why factories/watchtowers are being conceived
look into why having just a couple channels aint enough for full random pay anyone
look into how the byzantine generals issue applies
look into the 6degree of kevin bacon plays out
look into the funds of channels and the % of operability the more 'kevin bacons' are involved
the list goes on

you already know that the 2mb legacy with segwit was just a ploy. by the same group that just wanted segwitx1. it was always just a bait and switch to try getting the numbers up.. many seen that. hense why UASF was also needed to push segwit through

but letting bitcoins network expand in a efficient byte for byte transaction for transaction is not their roadmap.
because who would want LN if bitcoin could handle the transaction flow for 2015-2020

its why they have the wishy washy hurpa derp code of x4. its why they had to do a hard fork mascaraed as a UASF and then point fingers at another group as the instigators..
its all just social drama just to keep things running along a roadmap that is designed to make investors of devs money. and not to innovate and expand bitcoin byte for byte/transaction for transaction

funny part is segwitx1 only had 40% consensus. but without segwit. devs would not have fulfilled their private investment contracts to get their $$  so had to employ such tactics of UASF and finger pointing. to get it done.

anyway.
all i care about is innovating the bitcoin network. you can point your fingers that i must be another coin lover because im not ass kissing devs all you like.
you can try thinking the only solution is other networks and if i dont like the devs i should play with other coins. but thats just the mindset of people that think the only option is other networks.
if thats your mindset. maybe you should move to the other networks you want people to concentrate and look at so much

actually i and others have given solutions to problems. even solutions to segwit too.
 but those that see me bringing up flaws or see me offering solutions dont think about the flaw/solution. they just see the hate and then dramatise it into a finger pointing game of social distraction to meander the content away from talking about the flaw..

yea i know. you core positive PR guys that poke the bear. and then quoting when the bear bites, that the bear bit.. is just your ploy. more wasted time talking about social distractions

anyway.
LN is a separate network with flaws. now if anyone cares about bitcoin. start concentrating on bitcoin. not advertising core devs and their features that are made to make investment returns.

we are just waiting time with other networks and social distractions. and less time getting devs to innovate the bitcoin network.
LN wont be ready any time soon. so no need to promote it. put your wasting time to actually trying to innovate the bitcoin network.

i dont need to break it or rip people off. i just need to tell an LN dev of an exploit.

anyway
you can spend your own life trying to social distract people informing the flaws to counter your narative that its a service people need and why its worth wasting years waiting for LN instead of getting devs to grow bitcoins network.

but how about concentrate less on these other networks designed to make devs and their private investors behind their salaries returns on their investments. and instead care more about the bitcoin network

the reason i say actually use something. is because you seem more about promoting the positives. than someone that spends time using the thing they want to promote positively.

you need to learn how the routing works to actually understand the scheme quoted in the first post.
you need to learn about byzantine generals to learn about other exploits.
you need to actually use LN to know its limitations, how it functions

but trying to explain to you the faults without you doing the basic understanding of certain things is like trying to explain to a person that ha never driven or seen a car engine why a car wont start.
in other words if you have nevr driven a car and not seen engine. dont get involved in discussions about cars. and dont start insulting people that say cars have flaws. because all your doing is turning a discussion about car faults into a discussion about social dramatising the people talking about it.

again try learning the things. try using the things. and then you will get shocked.
coz so far it just seems all you are learning is PR positive promoting.

either way. your dramatising things and insulting is just distracting the content away from the content...
and just turning things into a kardashian drama over who hates who. rather than a what's wrong with a technology that has caused so much delay, and will cause even more delay due to the flaws. and why we should now re-concentrate efforts on the bitcoin network and just let LN be what it is a separate network that some devs can sort out while bitcoin devs actually start concentrating on bitcoins network again

EG the paid devs that want to say bitcoin cant scale.. let them go play with LN
and those that want bitcoin to be innovative and grow. actually concentrate on making bitcoin grow.

steady permanent growth is already happening. and all you need to do just change your viewpoint

by standing at the tip of the ATH mountain or the tip of a monthly average high.. your not seeing it.
instead stand at ground level of the years LOW $5800.. and you will see the difference.

2016: always above $300
2017: always above $900
2018: always above $5800

il spell it out for you
THERE .. ARE.. MANY.. THINGS
ill also spell this out
there is no supposed modified client... ALL CLIENTS CAN BE MODIFIED
there is no pirate party group that have a downloadable client.
its individuals all with their own variants. in short

YOU MODIFY YOUR OWN CLIENT AND FREE YOURSELF TO DO MANY THINGS because of lack of byzantine generals rule
its not like there is a team that has a download that you can social drama REKT. its all individual clients that play with their nodes in many fancy ways

many have already lost funds/gained funds.. not lost or gained but reported the ability to do so.
maybe now that you have suddenly been motivated by a chance of free money. you might put a critical hat on and try LN and play with it with the attempt to see the flaws.

people are doing game plays that abuse the routing (raiding channels)
people are doing code changes to lock others funds up by not just autopiloting agreements. (blackmail)
they are sending out transactions with different opcodes to sign so they can mess with destinations and inputs
people are setting up multiple channel lines so they can multiply their fees
people are

go play with LN

?me bring down LN one node at at time?
again i point out the flaws but i dont have the lack of morals/ethics to steal other peoples funds. your narrow view of things and people think that if someone say something is wrong they are the kind of people who want to destroy it.  is totally wrong

what i find strange is that you want to promote the hell out of LN but you act like you have never tried it and afraid to try it
how about use the testnet, alter some code.

LN devs know loads of flaws. maybe its time you learned them. instead of sticking with the positive utopia
why do you think the concepts are changing and moving the goal posts.

GO PLAY WITH LN

no point in talking about going anonymous
look what the OP did


no point asking a network to be anonymous if your literally linking your address to things that can reveal things about you.

which. even knowing the problem.. seems people dont listen and think its expensive....
(facepalm)

no

your locking your real funds(8 decimals) up with someone on the blockchain of either litecoin or bitcoin..(and other coins too)
and then in the separate network playing with 12decimal tokens that are faster. but are locked into transactions that need someone elses authority and being online to accept

as a separate service of convenience for a niche of people that have caluclated the benefits and risks and know its purpose. they can use it. but that does not mean we should waste years not re-innovating bitcoins network, purely because we should wait for LN

nothing against the LN continuing. but the constant advertising that its a bitcoin feature or bitcoins solution. while the devs and other less secure network promoters keep saying bitcoin cant scale and LN is needed.. is the issue.

LN should be thought of as what it really is. a separate network for multiple coins. that uses its own token of 12 decimals and a second party to co-authorise payments in channel payments, AND requiring the other parties in other channels along routes.. AND the destination to be all online to allow a payment of these 12 decimal tokens to occur faster than a bitcoin transaction would to random people.

but hey. lets hear the typical reply from other network advertisers. "if you dont like it F**k off" to another network

you might want to use LN yourself first... but not with the utopian 'i shall follow the rules' and make one payment the way it was intended. but with a 'lets see if i can tinker' mindset.
it will shock you

did you even read the disclaimers LN dev keep highlighting.
LN nodes "should" "must".. if you knew the byzantine generals. you would realise those words do not mean nodes will.. it just means 'please try to'

doomad you got m wrong on so many levels

1. i've highlighed LN flaws for them to be fixed. my issue is not LN's existance. its the treating it like bitcoins sole solution for bitcoins future. just because i dont kiss devs asses when i highlight issues does not mean anything. i highlight flaws to highlight flaws.

2. people need to be aware that LN is not bitcoin so they are aware it is not the same security model, not the same 100% self control model. not the same push transaction model, not the same recipient gets paid even if offline model. not the same in many ways as what bitcoin network offers.

3. promoting LN is like promoting ripple. you lock your bitcoin up. you play with other tokens that represent it and then at the end you can with someone elses authority withdrawal real bitcoins by broadcasting a 8 decimal valued transaction back onto the bitcoin network.
(ln use 12 decimals so payments are not actual bitcoins, before you spout out that its a bitcoin token being used inside LN)

4. as for you main question. because there is no community consensus to reject/orphan off them 12 decimal tokens people play within within the channel. person B can edit a node to ignore bolts or pause bolts command list of what suppose to happen at any point. and instead do other things.
LN devs think they have helped reduce the risk by having certain penalties for not following bolts. but they havnt. penalties of X millisat for delay/no response from B are useless if B is just going to take the whole funds from A anyway
its like you can charge me $1 a day but if i then take $20 which includes all them $1 a day.. the issue aint solved

5. continuing on..  the not solving byzantine generals is indeed a risk because i can send a tx that has a slight different opcode. and when your node signs it. i can then manipulate things. the LN devs know this because when they see people using mobile wallets with just GUI's and no ability to go into it and see the raw tx data. and because these LN mobile apps are all autopilot they get signed unchcked.
other people in their channel that do tinker with the protocol. can tinker.. and guess what.. PEOPLE HAVE LOST FUNDS

.....
now getting back to the bitcoin network. segwit has not helped anything.. there are less transactions occuring. fee's are more then they were in 2015 and the tx/byte of real hard drive usage has shown segwit is worse than legacy. all segwit has done was fake the numbers with x4'ing legacy to fake how many bytes legacy actually uses/costs. and then cuts segit transactions apart to hide segwits actual byte usage/cost. like i said wishy washy hurpa durp code.

they admit they done the wishy washy hurpa durp code to get around needing to hard fork.. but in they end they done a hard fork anyway in august because not enough people voted for segwit. oh and before you reply with the script that bitcoin cash instigated a hard fork. sorry but check the blockchain. segwit first activated the ban node/reject non conforming blocks before.. cash didnt even come into existence until hours later.

you can try flip flopping the social finger point games all you like. but maybe read some code first. read some stats, read some blockdata. read the latest LN concepts and read that things are not as you seem

lastly you think that i am trying to coerse the network... um conversations are not code

i know you are desperate for me to release code. not to review it. not to see what mine does compared to others.. but just to join the troops that REKT anything that is not the reference client.
sorry im not playing your social drama games of 'REKT it cos it aint core'.