all that really matters when it comes to the price that people should ever care about. is not the 10 minute fluke events of ATH..
but simply this:

2016 bitcoin never dropped below $300
2017 bitcoin never dropped below $900
2018 bitcoin hasnt dropped below $6000

once you grasp that mindset. people can learn to chill

LN is not a feature locked to bitoin cores network. the bitcoin core developers admitted this as part of their segwit address format BC1q proposals for LN

as for bitcoin cores ONCHAIN tx/s. again. admitted by the bitcoin core devs. even with 4mb "weight" allowance. the dependancy of the legacy restraint on the blockchain, has stistically made it so even if there was 100% transaction utility of segwit format tx's. only expect 2.1x tx capacity boost compared to the norm.

as for the 7tx/s(never achieved in 9 years by the way)
thats based on 2009 theory of IF every transaction in a legacy block being a lean 1input 1 output tx to allow for 4200tx(=7tx/s). but the reality is that will not happen. on average its only ~2100tx a block(3.5tx/s) not 4200tx a block(7tx/s).

thus IF everyone used a segwit tx format expect (~2100 legacy*2.1) segwit at ~4500 tx a block.. but again thats only an IF everyone used segwit tx format.  so again dont expect 7tx/s as a norm

the reason for "weight" being x4 but not offering 4x capacity is for other bloaty features to come. which dont help transaction count increase but will fill the remaining "weight" buffer without havingas much impact on decreasing tx capacity.
take this as an example. of how you wont get 4x tx capacity.

2mb data. but only 225 tx's in the block
https://blockchain.info/block-height/505225

and what i just said is words from those in the core team. thus feel free to laugh if core fans try to rip their own teams stats apart to then try over promoting features the propagandists dont even understand.

Blockchain is the term for open community version of data that is linked together and publicly distributed in what is meant to be a quasi decentralised way

Distributed Ledger Technology(DLT) is the term for the closed community version that linked together and selectively distributed in what is meant to be a quasi centralised way.

there are projects like hyperledger which the FIAT banking sector are developing (using the DLT buzzword)
there are thousands of blockchain projects (high majority pump and dump non sustainable) developing (using the blockchain buzzword)

there are some cross over developments around the area of sidechains/sideledgers(DLT):
where a region/country has a chain. imagine it like a bank branch of 8000 customers account history. which link to other regions/countrys chain of the same design. function, just done as separate chains to regionalise and cut down on having one chain abused by millions of people.
whereby these side chain/edgers link to a master chain/ledger(IMF/central bank) which then audits the chains as a whole


there are "off chain" services/networks:
well thats just swapping funds/data without a blockchain/DLT involvement at every usage, which can be done in thousands of different ways because they dont have to rely on chains/DLT as much as people think

there are also multichains/multiledger(DLT):
similar to sidechains. but where each chain/DLT is completely different offering different options. EG one chain/DLT for currency, one for ID. but both chains/DLT are linked/relationshiped together


there are also hyperchains/hyperledgers:
where each chain/DLT is completely different offering different options. EG one chain/DLT for currency, one for ID. but both chains/DLT are linked/relationshiped together but not via a master "chain/ledger" but by a offchain/off ledger

---

then with all that said. theres the whole big discussion about whattyp of data is then used.
currency data (tokens/transactions)
Identity data (names and addresses)
voting data (polls and votes)
property data (deeds and Wills)
logistic data (source to destination of produce)

the list goes on

both sides are wrong. both were part of the bilateral split on august 1st, both diverted and both went thier separate ways.
its literally wrote in the IMMUTIBLE blockchains of both networks

bitcoin can be owned by NEITHER side.

and thus it must be clarified that its
bitcoin CORE
bitcoin CASH

you do know this whole propaganda thing of core vs cash is all just finger pointing social drama. both bloq who made cash network and blockstream who made segwit which is now the core network are both funded by the same group right.

you must also know by now that everything ver is doing theymos has done
everything adam back is doing craig wright has done

its all one big masquerade

cash is the pimple on the left arm
core is the cancer on the right arm

and deep pocket investors want people looking at the hands while they take the whole body in the middle

atleast james lopp is speaking the truth

BTC = bitcoin CORE

now anyone that says 'no its just bitcoin' is under the same hypocrisy of cash
NO ONE owns "bitcoin" brand

if you argue that bitcoin.com says bitcoin cash is doing something. atleast dont be hypocritical and instead realise that bitcoin.org is doing the same thing

you cant pretend bitcoin cant be owned when arguing the cash drama. but then say bitcoin can be owned when defending the core drama

just accept the reality that the non-consensus bilateral split occured on august 1st. which is something provable in the blockchain of both networks. and provable in code. thus undeniable.
accept it occured. accept both networks went in different directions and get over it.

NO ONE SHOULD OWN "BITCOIN"
then it will become easier to then start the real process of trying to get back to the ethos of what was once bitcoin:
core to never again do a mandatory bilateral split to gain power,
core to never rekt any node that wants to use consensus
core to treat other node implementations that want to remain on the network with respect on an equal level playfield of consensus

then and only then can the decentralsied ethos be truly discussed as a feature

yes other node devs might propose features the COMMUNITY dont desire.
yes other nodes might not get 95% COMMUNITY agreement.
and dare i say it
yes core devs  might propose features the COMMUNITY dont desire.
yes core nodes might not get 95% COMMUNITY agreement.

but thats where consensus comes in. the community discuss an overal compromise that benefits the majority as a whole.. no sides. no war. just a compromise and agreement.

but never should core do a mandatory consensus bypass bilateral split to turn their 35% into 100% to take power
and never should core do a mandatory consensus bypass bilateral split to turn others 65% into 0% to remain in power

this is why i am not in team cash.. but yes i also detest core. .. many people cannot see the big picture of the whole ecosystem to see beyond the 2 team drama of finger pointing.

the end result though.
bitcoin core WILL NOT have LN as its sole feature to rival other currencies.
bitcoin core really will need to decide to do something to the core protocol that adds something that other currencies do not have.
bitcoin core will need to step back and publicly announce that they will never again use a 'mandatory dated consensus bypass' upgrade
bitcoin core will need to work as a level playing field, allowing other nodes to use consensus.  no bilateral split, no REKT campaigns

any way.. while the core defenders keep up the distraction drama of core vs cash.. pointing fingers while barry silbert grabs the branding.

what people are not looking at is that while being told cash is the threat. which its not. other currencies are making a move for the top spot..
but hey. let the core devs and their fans point fingers away from the real big picture.

may all core fans enjoy your little cabin fever of an echo chamber

analogy of a core dev/fanboy
"everyone look at this annoying pimple on my right arm.. but dont look at the skin cancer on the left arm. and definetly dont notice the entire body"

august 1st was a hard fork. wake up to reality. they even had to make a mandatory date and reject blocks.. you know this. so stop denying it. its actually got code and even block proof it occured. so you cant deny it or prove it did not occur.

seems you too have run down the core rabbit hole

but they are not. core are centralised
let me guess. next you are going to say apple is decentralised because employees and interns have their own homes and own commputers..


core submit code. and BYPASS consensus. and put in a MANDATORY upgrade date of august 1st
others submit code, use consensus.. and core REKT, "fork off" scream, and bilateral split them away

show me any network upgrades that have occured on the blockchain since 2013 that have occurd not due to CORES process
show me just one

seems you have spent a bit of time over at reddit cand started catching the core defense bug..

seems out of the box thinking of bitcoin without you dfending core has now officially been lost. you have now ran down the core rabbit hole.

goodluck. but remember core are not immortal. so try not to wast too much time kissing their ass hailing them as kings. one day they will just stop coding and/or retire. but until then other nodes will continue to be REKT, screamed at with "fork off" or get bilaterally split away.. unless they act like sheep to cores roadmap

anyone thinking LN is a feature locked to bitcoin core network would be dead wrong. its not going to be something that renews bitcoin core network with anything that other networks will not also have.

this is because LN will be its own network that many other currencies will use. the core devs admit this. that is the whole point of segwit address format BC1q.
so that other networks can have their own currency identity. such as LTC would have LC1q on the LN network

so while many coins would all be using LN, the question still will be, what has bitcoin core devs done specifically to upgrade the bitcoin core network to make it more feature filled, and atleast more scaling proof than other networks that too will use LN.

emphasise this in your mind when thinking of the answer:
when all currencies use LN. what has the bitcoin core network alone got as a scaling advantage that othr networks wont have?

---

and to those who hate that people define the network as the bitcoin core network should read some code about what caused the segwit activation. and the new block structure acceptance and the new network topology, the new transaction formats. and that it had to be a mandatory signalling, rather than a consensus choice

    bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
    bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
    if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
        return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
    }

the code shows that blocks NOT signalling for cores NEW segwit protocol will get rejected. this included rejecting any legacy(bitcoin 2009-2016) block versions that would have been mined on august 1st 2017

yep bitcoin core network rejected blocks on august 1st that were not signalling cores new protocol. again for emphasis including block formats of bitcoin 2009-2016
which if people could read code shows that bitcoin core is not a continuation of the bitcoin 2009-2016 network but a fork away from it by rejecting blocks of that format known as bitcoin 2009-2016..

also. if cores new protocol was truly backward compatible
(not needing new nodes to translat as a upfilter/bridge node to old clients)
(not refusing to relay unconfirmed segwit transactions to old clients)

then the upgrade could have occured by not changing the versionbits and not have to reject legacy blocks. and instead get the opposition to set a version bit. in which the feature would only activate if there was less than 5% showing the version bit change (95% acceptance).

but no the segwit code is NOT backward compatible. it requires a middleman translater in the form of nodes (as gmax calls upstream filters, luke JR calls bridge nodes) to translate and reformat the blockchain. and the network topology had to change to put the old clients on an outer ring of the network. whereby they are not part of the peer to peer relay network, but downstream/bridged from the relay network

in short analogy english speaking nodes of 2009-2016 do not understand the dutch speaking blockchain of 2017-2018. core/segwit nodes can speak dutch and english. the network of 2017-8 is now dutch but the new population can translate and cut down the dutch informtion into a short version that any remaining minority race(old clients) left can be handed. but english speaking nodes cannot be part of the unconfirmd dutch transaction relay postal service because they wont understand dutch.

emphasis. even the core devs admit to this

now to those that still think that core are kings and deserve the power. where will you stand when they retire, decide to do other projects
EG if all the core devs decided at mid day tomorrow to all stop coding. and then 10 minutes later a bug was found that affects all nodes running cores segwit code. what would your attitude be.
would it be calm collected "its ok" or would you panic

you might think core are your kings. but they are not immortal.

if any of you core defenders actually cared about "bitcoin" as a decentralised network. you would not defend core. you would request they disband their mantatory rules and never use mandatory upgrades again(unless network killing bug found) and only use consensus of a open decentralised network for upgrades. whereby the community combine idea's to a unified compromise that all node client software would release a version of that would require less than 5% opposition to activate.

emphasis: consensus, compromise, community
de-emphasis: mantatory, contentious rejection, control

---

also bitcoin cash are not backward compatible.
this is why its called a bilateral split. NEITHER side is a true backward compatible continuation of the 2009-2016 network. which is where the debate begins of who should own brand "bitcoin"..
to which the easy answer is NEITHER. no one should own the brand.

instead its much simpler to say
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash

...
i now expect the standard onslaught of reddit script rebuttles defending core, then pretending its not core its bitcoin, then defending core again..
but ultimately not defending the true ethos of bitcoin as a decentalised everyone on the same level playing field of consensus network

have a nice day.
remember core are not immortal. where will you stand if CORE they stopped coding in 24 hours

as someone else said, it sounds like a user is testing your security.
things they can find out about your system such as

do funds cycle through certain cold wallets inbetween a deposit/withdrawal.
do you even have a cold wallet.
what other addresses are linked to you

2016 didnt drop below $300
2017 didnt drop below $900
2018 didnt drop below $6000

so chill out guys. stop pretending $20k is the expectation of 'norm'... instead flip your mindset the other way around

those that stand at $20k and look down are always going to think the glass is less than half full and not refilling

those that stand at $6k and look up are always going to think the glass is filling up nicely, even if people are taking a gulp out of it

not really negative as it didnt really hype up things like silk road...
.. what it did do though, is create the hype of ICO's

yep that series created the idea of ICO fundraising for crapcoins

yes because core have not solved anything

the price is not affected by code. the price is fluid and people speculate on greed. 99% dont even know a line of code or who is behind coding it
scaling has not be dealt with.. in 2009 they estimated that bitcoin could handle 7tx/s

show me a block since 2017 that has exceeded 7tx/s (4200 tx)

as for features like segwit. adoption has not jumped to 100% adoption. funny part is that on average its ~10% of a block is segwit.
even funnier. the pools that flagged an undying belief that segwit is great code. dont actually trust it enough to use segwit transactions for their own block rewards
even while writing this. the most vocal supporting pool of segwit, which is BTCC. is still using legacy addresses for its block rewards
https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000002dd71853f6d273cf1ddb30e82316a742adf61e14cfdecc
..
lots of people are getting errors. even in the block created while writing this. someone tried to use new scripts. but ended up with the 0.001($7) test amounts being treated as a fee
https://blockchain.info/tx/7a0fb9f33a72fe5b7033c9db101760bc79dc2def545f1445b67fc60e7d48c21c
https://blockchain.info/tx/762a4068e2cd9778c74947bd7de041e06deb2d14d3a4417e6a85ddb65139a7f8
https://blockchain.info/tx/41cbcafd9d76909bbbdf7ce030e8d464d0717a122b42e2cfca5c1479488b0c94
..
the only thing that has changed is that the collaberation of the core devs, their friendly mixers and their friendly pools have stopped spamming the network now their features are locked in.
this is not due to their features working, because hardly anyone is actually using them.
but due to them needing to spam the network as a propaganda move to make people feel that something needed to be done. and then argue only core could do it..



with that said, no one should just hand core the reigns of bitcoin. because devs retire, devs get bored. devs' get paid off to do nasty things. and without other independant teams separate from core being on the same level playing field of consensus(core dont want a level playing field) it puts too many eggs into one basket.

but hey, i know many core promoters will just buzz word that core are kings, core are conservative, core deserve to maintain the network alone

care to ask yourself why core devs call it an "experiement" and why after 9 years. core still class it as being beta tested

here you go again with the "big-blocker" buzzword,
it is like a certain time of the day where you sit back and down a gallon of the core reddit script koolaid?

firstly the COMMUNITY majority said 2mb
core said no..
core then propagandised the "gigabyte block" as "big blockers"

core then said 2mb was bad, for technical reasons.. but kept up the gigabyte block propaganda

.. and then. the laughing part
core backtracked the technical problems for 2mb and then said 4mb weight is fine.. all because they realised THEY needed 4mb for thieir segwit transaction types.. but still didnt want to give the community the 2mb for the legacy transaction types. even though technical details showed 2mb was not a problem anyway.

they decided to split the network to get rid of core opposers, so that core could go in one direction away from the rules of 2009-2016. and the rest go in another direction.. yep core diverted directions too.. thats why even core said its a bilateral split and not a unilateral split.

P.S
try not to wear the core defense cap. because by saying the protocol is safe in thier hands is you giving up your own hands(dcentralisation) and handing bitcoin to core.
and try not to get too addicted to the reddit script koolaid. it becomes too obvious when you start using certain buzzwords but lack the full picture of understanding.

im not even talking about both chains at this point.. im highlighting the hypocrisy of "core" how those that point fingers to pretend bitcoin is decentralised and no team own it by saying somone needs to be sued.. yet when the debate is flipped.. they then defend how they want bitcoin to b centralised and owned by one team. and that include (the mega hypocritical and even worse part) letting one person say its just one team "core" that are the project

so to reword your question to clarify my point..
could you imagine if bitcoin.org DID promote core, btcd, knots, unlimited, xt, classic (all clients of the SAME chain) EQUALLY?
OMG mind blowing thought.
could you imagine if people stopped defending core and stopped attacking any node that is running on the same network as core..
OMG mind blowing thought again
just imagine it. no more directing people to think that core is the master, king, controller.

this is why i keep telling people if they really believed in bitcoin decentralisation.. first they must take off the core defense hat, to atleast give themselves purspective.


in america talking to americans, yea just call the dollar the dollar.
in england talking other brits, yea just call the pound the pound

but ovr the internet.. (sorry to open your mind to this) where the walls expand beyond the room your computer sits. where anyone can be anywhere in the world. when someone mentions dollar sometimes its prudant and easy to ask if they mean US dollar or australian dollar. especially if that person is asking for some

EG imagine i was australian and you were american. i say i will give you $20,000, but have you got a $ acepting bank account
soon enough we find out that i cant give you australian dollar because you have an american bank account.. so you lose

you should have clarifed it was a US bank.. or i should have asked if it was a US or AU.. . thats all im saying.
over the internet. you cant just assume. so its simpler to just ask which they are talking about because the brand should not be owned by anyone

..
but anyway. it seems the people i debate with are not bitcoin defenders.. but core defenders. and they cant see the hypocrisy of the difference. even whn highlighting the reverse psychology thats being played out

the point of calling it bitcoin core instead of bitcoin is this..
if i call it bitcoin core. core defenders pretend and try to say no its bitcoin because core dont own it... 2 seconds later defend that core do 

the way i see it

2016 the price did not drop below $300
2017 the price did not drop below $900
2018 the price hasnt droped below $6000

i personally never care for or check for the buzz of ATH (all time highs) as they are just temporary events lasting only seconds or minutes before correcting themselves. in most cases hardly anyone is ready for the event to actually take advantage of it.

most are not logged into an exchange at that exact second to be quick enough to type in an order and press submit.. and so 99% of the community never benefit from it ..
so why should we care. why should we highlight it. why should people hype $20k as if its (foolishly) an expected normal amount to then treat anything below it as a "drop"... it was not a drop. it was a correction

as long as the long term growth continues and there shows good support of continuing rise of THE LOWS compared to previous years. thats all that matters.

january, febuary and march. was a correction. then based on lows and support lines. april and may have seen prices break under previous support lines. which is where the "dip" is.

not so much an insurance company(government regulated). but a public body that can display they as a multisig co-signer have morals and rules to not spend funds themselves  and are not in cahoots with the exchange. usually this would be an pre-established entity who has experience and would happily register their location details to be handed court orders should anything nasty happen.

im not saying regulated registration insurance.. im saying public consumer protection insurance. which there is a difference.

regulated insured establishments are allowed to break the law, pretend they are bankrupt to not pay out and then go money grabbing
consumer protections keeps businesses ethical or suffer repercussions

after all. how many bankers went to jail due to the crises. and on the flip side how many bankers got more richer
where as if a business with consumer protection certification, would get court orders and bailiffs at their doors in a crisis

bitcoin insurance is a hard thing to achieve. many home insurers do not automatically pay out at request. they investigate and do accounting on the chance/risk that the insured person has not simply hidden the posessions to pretend they were stolen. which is harder to prove because a investigator cannot simply ask neighbours if they seen a removal van at the persons home. so i do not see insurance companies offering a personal insurance. as there are too many ways to fake a claim to get out mor then the person put in.

however
exchanges could decide to put their trade fee's into a trust (multisig) that is co-signed by an insurance company. where by to keep trade fee's down and keep the exchange profitable. can only access the fee's after 12 months of the trade.

EG
imagine in one day trade fee's totaled 7.45btc(Gdax example), over a year totals ~2,700btc
at the 366th day the exchange will get their 7.45btc. but could lose ~2,700btc if they do anything to harm thier customers

its kind of how silk road reportedly operated, by having a reserve/collateral. how how some fiat institutions are set up. though fiat institutions do not get their premiums back after a year, which is why trading fee's can be higher in those cases