expanding on that, blockchain explorer checking vibrator..
vibrates for 60 seconds for just 0.001($9) (full orgasm of bunnygirl expected in 0.01($90))
(excuse the lack of knowing the going rate.... never been to strip club, i get my action at home with a person not asking for payment)

anyways
hmmm.. lets expand on it..
for more fun

for couples that have code words to stop because they like to be pushed to their limit.
fund locktime = current confirm blockheight+6 before it wil stop vibrating, unless revocation key used

yep if you stop before the hour is up, you dont get paid

take it. i havnt got time to make it myself. i have thrown many idea's into the community. so its all fair play

instead of a latex thong... how about strippers wear a flexible "smart paper" thong so that it displays balances on the thong, or does other clever things like go transparent at a certain balance

actually zin-zang is kinda accurate

for instance
a paypal dollar is not the exact same as a bank account dollar.
you cant pay anyone thats not a paypal accepting merchant with a paypal dollar

much like you cannot pay someone not using LN with an LN time locked multisig

it has to be authorised and broadcast into the normal 'community'(national banking) system and fully settled before a customer can then pay a merchant outside of paypal.

same as a american express dollar is not the same as a dollar bank note..
many amrican express usrs have to find an ATM get their paymnt authorised to get bank notes to then pay a bill with a merchant that does not accept american express

so if we were to say bitcoin was a decentralised "be your own bank" then LN is a centralised paypal2.0 network
.. but thats just going an extra layer deep into the anaology of analogies

so to keep it simple without multitudes of analogies inside of analogies

in my view
LN is a banking network like swift(US) or 'fasterpayment(UK)
a hub(hundred to thousands of channels) is a bank branch..
a user(node with just 1-3 accounts) only using it to spend is a bank customer
though it appars like a traditional bitcoin transaction. the locks and new features of 2014+
means that while inside the LN network. a tx cannot be handled by the blockchain (the locks)

anyway

the other parts about withholding funds (CLTV)
reversing/punishing users with chargebacks(revocation keys/CSV)
fee's for service
requiring authorisation
are all things that banks do. which is not what traditional bitcoin does

LN is the banking network for a currency that used to be 100% decentralised

---

the problem with trying to compare crypto to fiat in analogies of banking is that the fiat banking is a farse/scam.

take credit unions vs banks
credit unions do not create credit out of no where. they actually do use other account holders funds to give to others for loans
banks do not actually use other account holders funds to give others loans. they actually do create credit out of nowhere

which is where the banks have been for decades been lying to people about how FIAT and banking works, which is part of why satoshi dsigned bitcoin. to get away from banks/places that people have to store funds and require second partys authorisation.

yet LN it bringing it full circle back to being like the farse of banking(reality of credit union)

banks dont care about bitcoin.. to them its jsut business as usual.. a buyer buys a item and hands fiat to a seller.. to a bank its just fiat moving from a buyers bank account to a sellers bank account.
no fiat is actually destroyed due to bitcoin

also the bitcoin community is not destroying fiat laws. not creating a new community of anything better than fiat. infact the community of 2009-2014 has declined and it has become mor regulated less oppositing of fiat. and more accepting of regulations while still not bothering to protect itself from scammers or others that try to steal funds.

as for banks making their own coins.. well that will have little to no impact. after all no one knows or cares about what database structure a bank has, nor the banking network security. in the end dollars and euros are still digits on a computer. that occasionally you can have a piece of paper that rpresents digits on a computer.
but if banks use blockchain. it wont make any difference to citizens. all it will do is reduce the banks running costs because they no longer need to employ auditors or security staff becuse their blockchain is self managed.. that is it. a banker blockchain will only benefit the bankers and will only be noticable by those who stand behind the banker walls

as for bitcoin being decentralised.. that too since 20014 has declined. with it turning from satoshi-qt.. to core.. things became more centralised. where there is only one roadmap that was designed by one group and anyone that loves bitcoin but opposes the one groups roadmap are to be treated as attackers and need to be thrown off the network
the roadmap only had 35% community consensus(satoshis election coded invention) but the cores group decided to avoid consensus and do a bilateral split to kick out any core opposers. yep core got to 95% by kicking out 60% to an alt by using their partner BLOQ to do the bilateral split under the trojan horse that the split was a fair election... when infact it was a deportation

there have been 4 REKT campaigns and 1 bilateral split all to ensure one team becomes the monarchy.. where the devs that are paid. who wer part of this tyranical monarchy creation are all ultimately paid by the same group (https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b)
but hey. while this is all happening.. they wanna throw some kardashian drama about unimportant poeoples glory hounding story.. (craig wright, the fraud and nobody) all done just to distract you from the invasion

ignoring the "price orgasm" everyone has about bitcoin

thinking about the function/utility and mainstream adoption(merchants) bitcoin has NOT grown. its actually declined

as for the "they fight us"
actually i see that as they "invade us"
after all every time i see a topic about a country adding regulations. nearly every fiat loving profiteer that doesnt understand what bitcoin is really about cheers that it is a benefit for bitcoin.

businesses that use bitcoin do not need regulation. what is actually needed is consumer protection. which is totally diffrnt from regulation.

yet i see no community spirit fighting off bureaucratic regulations nor do i see any community spirit trying to attain consumer protection..

so all in all its not a gandhi quote that we are experincing. its a
first they ignore us, then they invade us, then they limit us

core does not use the original consensus rules
try using the original client satoshi-qt-0.1 on bitcoin core network

LEARN definition of FORKS

both core and cash are not the original satoshi invention. they both forked off

core is actually a fork. just like cash
its not like clams where a script kiddie just made a separate ntwork

the BILATERAL SPLIT event that split core from cash seen to that

its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash

but a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash

it was a bilateral split not a unilateral split..

core DO NOT OWN brand bitcoin............ no one does!!!

no team own bitcoin..

neither side
the truth is it actually is
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash

much like dollar is open to all countries
american dollar
canadian dollar
australian dollar

if the currency you use commonly is in your pocket then you can use it in common conversation as an abreviation
.. so yes
if you are australian you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any U.S dollars'
if you are australian you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any canadian dollars'

if you are american you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any Australian dollars'
if you are american you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any canadian dollars'

that is why.. core need to accept that bitcoin is trademarked by no one and accept that they too will be called bitcoin core by outsiders

that is why.. cash need to accept that bitcoin is trademarked by no one and accept that they too will be called bitcoin cash by outsiders

but those who use core, will in common conversation but without staking claim of trademark will say they have bitcoin in thier wallet
but those who use cash, will in common conversation but without staking claim of trademark will say they have bitcoin in thier wallet

i can see the defense as:
(use of 'dollar' for analogy)

dollar is owned by no one.
america can use it
canada can use it
australia can use it

if america want to make a lawsuit about how people have been told that australia has the dollar, then i would laugh
if a european paid 0.62 for a dollar and handed a australian dollar. then there is no fraud (0.62 is AUS price)
if a european paid 0.82 for a dollar and handed a australian dollar. then there is fraud (0.62 is AUS price)

its just america(core) trying to grab the brand. so that brand becomes tradmarked, and no longer un-owned.

the "victims" would have a case if they paid $8000 for something worth only $800 at the time.
but if they paid $800 for 'a bitcoin' then that is not deceipt or fraud.

i wonder how many people actually paid >$7000 this month for 1 bitcoin cash.

EG
person: i want an apple..
merchant: ok thats 50 cents.. hands person a fruit
pereson: no i wanted the phone. im gonna sue you
merchant: laughs, goodluck

Vs
person: i want an apple..
merchant: ok thats $500.. hands person a fruit
pereson: no i wanted the phone. im gonna sue you
merchant: oh crap

8 "satoshi" bit long...

im not sure what satoshi's has to do with my nonce example. im just taking it as you being humourous to just add the word satoshi into the conversation..
but lets address the nonce example then ill talk about satoshis, the block reward and the end of bitcoin fresh coin production
....
i prefer to dumb things down into laymans ELI-5 speak whenever possible. so that anyone/everyone can understand the basics without having to test peoples knowledge/skill level before giving them advice.

so my example of
my name is bob
00000

that is just me deciding out of the randomness of human decision to press the return key on my keyboard after bob, to put a integer nonce on the second line, yes that nonce is integer (normal human numerics, not binary) just for the sake of human readible demo. so in my demo the nonce would be 5 bytes (40bits)
but like i said i try not to over complicate things

but as my whole post was expressing, that if you are creating your own blocckhain from scratch. you have the freedom to make your own rules and set things up however you like.

if you are interested more in bitcoins function rather than setting up your own blockchain. the white paper and the very first bitcoin client (satoshi-qt0.1 would help you understand the original basics. then once you get the original basics. you can skip passed a few later releases and then look at the latest version to see all the new rules that were added over the years and the new methods of data store and calculating things

...

one thing i will say about binary vs long vs double
although the front end GUI of a program displays funds of peoples public keys as bitcoin
EG
1.05btc

at code level and data storage level. it is all measured in satoshi's
EG
105,000,000 sats

for instance. front end(gui) level says there will be 21m btc eventually.
but at coding level its
5,000,000,000 sats every block(50btc) for 210,000 blocks then it halves(to 2,500,000,000 sats)(25btc).. then every 210,000 blocks it halves again and again until it cant halv any more (in about the year 2140~)
so that eventually there will be around(but not specifically) 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis
GUI: 21mill btc
code: 2.1quadrillion sats

if you are thinking of making you own coin. you can set your own rules
EG
make a file(block) with the contents:
my name is bob
00000

the 00000 is a nonce/salt of a block. luckily it produced a hash at 00000 (first try)
the hash of that is: 03DFAF10BE8125AFB277EE34C63BEB52B03BCB69F6D9F047C9B11D0BC9CFEE6A
now thats your block 0

now you can code your client to start checking for rules (as of block 1)
screw it. you can set your code to start validating rules as of any block number you like. but lets stick with block1
EG (in laymans terms)
from block ONE(not block0) to current block height
if Prev blockhash begins 0=valid
if janice creates 50=valid

now to create block1 contents
Prev blockhash=03DFAF10BE8125AFB277EE34C63BEB52B03BCB69F6D9F047C9B11D0BC9CFEE6A
janice=janice+50
00021

now after 22 tries block1 has a hash of: 0DECF5A46665ADFD0C82187293CD92C81866A0A7B985AA14141D512854442FD3

the good thing about blockchain technology is that you can do whatever you want. you dont have to copy satoshi's code
you can set your own contents of a block and set your own rules to decide if such content is valid or not.

later you can set new rules, as you progress
from block ONE(not block0) to 209,999
if Prev blockhash begins 0=valid
if janice creates 50=valid
from block 210,000 to current block height
if Prev blockhash begins 000=valid
if janice creates 25=valid

now you have just set it so that at block 210,000 its requires more attempts to get a hash that fits the rule and you also made the reward decrease

again you can set the rules and block format however you like

some devs are making blockchains that concentrate on hashing an updated UTXO set (list of unspent funds) where the transaction
ledger(history) can just be thrown away after 6 months because their nodes dont validate transaction history part beyond 6 months
because it would have been thought that after 6 months. and thousands of blockhashes later. theres no reason to check old/out of date data

its not really about bitcoin at all.. its just ensuring people pay tax on euro's that enter their bank account

its not french resident profit until its in your french resident bank account

just remember though if it was bought at Euro 8k and you cash out at Euro 9k .. although you have Euro 9k arriving in your bank account.. the 'gains' is only Euro 1k

yes the merchant becomes the banker2.0
put all your funds into a richard branson channel so you can buy train, plane and space travel tickets. by the way you need richard bransons signature every time you want to buy something.. oh look richard branson is now a bank

as for other posts
some banks dont use customers funds for internal investing
some banks dont do mortgages
some banks dont do credit cards or debt

these hubs are not best friends you conect to p2p, they are centralised services(HUBS) that the LN dns seeds can send a certain preferential list of hubs to users.
yes you can manually request to join a friend.
but that does not negate the point that hubs do exist and are centralised authorisers of hundreds of peoples funds


a bank is a storage vessel of value that needs authorisation. a central bank is where a central authoriser has powers to authorise or reject payment of other peoples funds. if you wish to object. then i guess another of satoshi's ethos of bitcoin has died "be your own bank"

LN is not a "be your own" concept because it requires secondary authorisation but it is a "bank" because it stores value and requires authorisation

you can play symantics all you like
"dont call it a chargback, use 'punishment' buzzword instead to hide average joes understanding"

but to generalise it
LN is not fit for purpose as a scaling solution everyone should use.
LN is not a 'unlimited use' concept that never needs to close channels.
LN is not a service where it is guaranteed to work if you only connect to one friend(you cant pay anyone by only connecting to a friend(DDos/out of funds issues))
LN is not a service where you can pay anyone in the (imaginable future of 7billion LN users) for just 1-3 hop fee's and only needing 1-3 channels to do that.

HUBS is the concept of getting millions of users 'well connected'

100 nodes with 100 connections and EVERY connection had 100 connections..
then you can be lucky to pay anyone in 3.5 hops(lets call it 4 just for sanity sake)
...screw it 95 nodes 95 connections and every connection had 95 connections = more realistic 4
or
300 nodes with 300 connections and EVERY connection had 300 connections..
then you can be lucky to pay anyone in 3 hops

but not all nodes will be 95-300 channels to pay within 3-4 hops, meaning much more than 4 hops will be required(fee costs increase)
or required to connect to hub(keeps costs down but then use centralised authoriser)

there will be some users with 3 connections (accounts with 3 banks)
and there will be hubs(banks) with 300(or more) customers that the hub(bank) will need to sign for

now imagine each node/hub equally agreed to charge the minimal 1millisat(1MS)
would you prefer a DECENTRALISED network of users with only 3 connections each which would cost upto 22MS but no guarantee of routing
where sometimes route fail due to DDos and funds unavailable in the route of channels

or would you end up using a CENTRALISED system of connecting to 3 hubs(banks) where it could cost you upto 4MS

because some how achow101 has this DIS-belief that LN is a utopian dream of perfect limitless connectiveness of only needing to connect to a couple friends and having guaranteed payment system that costs literally nothing to pay anyone in the world.

before you answer. take the mindset of average joe that can only predict their spending habits for a couple weeks ahead so will only want to risk $60~
would they want to split their funds into 300 channels of $0.20 or have maby 1 or to channels with hubs of $30~ each

its a timeout to not allow a CLTV output to be spent until X time (usually days to allow time for someone to realise a tx got confirmed but have time to still send a new tx with a revoke code to chargeback
hense CLTV concentrates on the 3-5 day before truly settled

github: CLTV " until that block height or block time has been reached the transaction output remains unspendable. "

That is completely false. That is not what CSV is used for. It is used as a timeout during which time a punishment can occur which is not the same as a chargeback. Once an HTLC is resolved or once new commitment transactions are put in place, the payment is final. There is not charging back. Trying to perform a chargeback would mean that you are broadcasting an old commitment transaction which means that you LOSE ALL of your money, not you gaining back whatever money that you sent.
[/quote]

CSV  REVOKES aka CHARGEBACK = punishment
you can call it a "punishment" all you like but all your screaming is tom8o.. the reality of average joe is actualy tom@o(chargeback)
if your waiting to receive funds and it shows its destined to be yours in a couple days.. but then someone else takes it from you. its a chargeback

EG
today 27tth April    multisig btween franky1 and paypal2.0 bank
tx1 CSV allow paypal to spend else 5 days pay franky 1btc..  signed franky1 signed paypal2.0
tx2 CSV allow paypal to spend else 5 days pay franky 1.2btc..  paypal gets tx1 Revoke .. signed franky1 paypal2.0 refuses to sign tx2
because paypal is not being co-operative franky1 sends tx1 as its the only tx franky has fully signed.
its broadcast, gets accepted into block. but franky1 cannot SPEND tx1 until 2nd may as he doesnt have tx1 revoke key

paypal does. so before 2nd of May paypal spends frankys tx1 funds back to paypals pot of funds. franky1 lost out

yep paypal done a chargeback

because its open source and all handshaking is done in private without the community decentralised auditing...
paypal node can tinker with its sourcecode to be the one that requests franky1 is the first to give up the old key first. thus franky1 loses out

if LN was so flawless and trustless. the blockchain(2009 invention) would not ever needed to be invented. because people could just smart contract
in private. and the whole many decades of trying to find a solution to decentralsied money would not be blockchain but LN

come on achow.. are you really saying that decentralised blockchain technology is a dead technology and not required. because private smart contracts are flawless. come on. atleast admit LN has limitations and flaws

as said
its not about YOU making a payment and YOU getting a refund.. its about YOU wanting to withdraw funds from paypal2.0 and paypal taking the money. leaving YOU out of pocket

LN is not the BANK..
LN is the swift network banks use.
hubs. one entity with authorisation power over multiple contracts of value store are the banks

yes you can set up a joint bank account with your wife(p2p) and never need to use the swift(LN routing).. but if you are just going to set up a payment system with someone you trust enough to be a counter-signer. you can just do that as an ONCHAIN multisig  and just use a piece of paper to tally who owes who what and just sign a final cheque/tx to finally settle up.

the purpose of LN is about routing/hubs and hops not about p2p

lets just clear up achows101 core defense

1. segwit only had 35%.. based on bitcoins consensus.
core team got mad.. the main devs wouldnt have got paid their next tranche of investor funding if segwit got opposed.. so they employed samson mow(UASF) and bloq:-jGarzic(bitcoinABC) to do something that goes totally against consensus. which is called a bilateral split. as proposed by gmaxwell.

firstly. making core able to bilaterally split frrom its opposition by deception.. getting the propaganda rumours of everyone to upgrade their nodes to either core or bitcoin ABC (false election as it was rigged to avoid consensus)
problem is .. bloq is actually team core
(same investor as blockstream)(https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b)

then all those that opposed core, got pushed over to an altcoin. making cores bip jump from 35% to 95%, it reminds me of apartheid(race segregation) of the opposition to rig elections
apartheid:
core(white people) own a bus company. pretend there are seats for everyone..
"its ok, this bus is for everyone".. but
if you dont like core(white people), sit at the back of the bus.. core(white) people dont want you upfront anyway
....... then
shoot the people sat in the back of the bus or push them off the bus
 
now the front of the bus with the engine is only core(white people) so only white people get to the destination(polling station) and the back of the bus doesnt count..

so yes core does have control and now core can slide in as many soft forks as they like.. take the newest addition.. bc1q addresses..
this new address type did not require consensus or even bilateral split to win by default to add these new addresses. they just added it because now they have a back door to do what they like without consensus
Luke JR's backdoor

even things like Knots is another core defending node client. thus the community do not have a free choice.
if you check through history. XT classic and the others that opposed core all got REKT due to cores control.

anything oposing cores roadmap is always treated like an attack, not fair competition.. the core team do not take it as an honourable competition of consensus but scream out its an attack against "bitcoin" because they feel that core own "bitcoin". thus anything opposing cores roadmap should be thrown into an altcoin

even R.ver's reverse psychology is proving that. core absolutely hate of anyone saying that cores network is not bitcoin.. yet NO ONE should own "bitcoin".. and thats the point of roger vers subtle reverse psychology. by making the core defenders literally scream that core own bitcoin and anything else is just an altcoin.

fiat analogy:
dollar is not owned by anyone... australia can use it, canada can use it. america can use it
r.vers subtlety "i australia own real dollars"
core defenders "we america own dollars, anything else is a fake/fraud/misleading people"

thus its like america saying australia does not exist, australia is a fraud and should not use dollars

end result no one should own dollar and when people ask 'i want dollar' the reply is 'U.S, canadian or australian?'
end result no one should own bitcoin and when people ask 'i want bitcoin' the reply is 'core or cash?'

remember its not
_______________________ 1
                   \__________  2
(2 unilaterally created an alt)

its not a
                    __________ 1
____________/__________ 2
(1 unilaterally created an alt)

its a
                   ___________ 1
___________/
                  \___________ 2
(1&2 bilateral split)..

yes a fork. both side go in separat directions. where no side is a straight blade
no side is the same rules as 2009-2014
no side is "the bitcoin"

also
by core PRETENDING its not centralised by saying they are a team of individuals rather than one person. is like saying apple cant be a centralised because its more than just steve jobs.. EG apple isnt centralised because of wozniac's involvement and sometimes disagreement with jobs in the past aswell as there being hundred other people work who on apple products.. also yes apple had unpaid interns(volunteers) too

its still a team that has a roadmap(5 year business plan)

go on deny samson mow wasnt employed by blockstream
deny segwit wouldnt have activated unless the opposition were not moved away via ABC
deny ABC wasnt created by the guys that got paid by the same investors that pay gmax, wuiile and samson(blockstream).

the BScartel (Barry Silbert/BlockStream) really does have the puppet master strings.

(i expect may harsh cries of defense about this post from the core lovers.. but while they spend most of their time defending core.. they are not
concentrating on th big picture of dcentralised "bitcoin")
(i expect those core defenders who dont care about decentralsiation to tr pigeon holing me into another team. purely because they lack the understanding of the concept of true decentralisation and independance.. to them its only core loyalist or opposition)

they are realising that blockchain is not simply a mysql database of facebook credits, but a real distributed ledger of assets. and its not something that just fades away if a company doesnt re-register after 12 months. crypto is built to continue forever(as long as they serve a function, people will mine blocks of that coin)



and as for ICO's needing to be regulated.. pfft. does she really realise what she is saying.

regulation is a government agency asking a business to self-vet its own customers, and allow the company to create its own policies
ICO's dont need to be regulated. ico's need to become liable to consumer protection laws more strictly.(there is a difference)

its not the investors of ICO's that need to be investigated. but is the ICO's themselves that need to be investigated

after all how many bankers have you seen go to prison due to all the many banking scams around 'payment insurance' 'bad(subprime) credit loans'
regulations are meaningless to consumers and just paperwork for businesses.

this time last month. the price of bitcoin went below the cost of mining 1btc. which does not happen often.
the cost of mining usually is treated as a good support line. but it appears many really dumped below that
(bears on a rampage)

as you can see by the red area on the right


but it has looked to recover but still not out of the woods. the bears are still hanging around

the cost of mining has gone a little wild this last month but $9133~ is the mining cost of 1btc today
if you ever want to calculate the mining cost. get the hash rate and then use this excel formulae

be warned different site show different daily hashrate averages. some say 23 ex some say ~30 ex

if hashrate measured in exa
=((HR/0.000014)*8.22)/1800                replace HR with hashrate: (28 for yesterday/taoday for example)

if hashrate measured in peta
=((HR/0.014)*8.22)/1800

if hashrate measured in terra
=((HR/14)*8.22)/1800

any way i dont think this trading below mining cost can go on for much longer before something happens.. the
day traders must be runnin out of old reserves, which will leave the miners fresh coins which they wont sell below cost
so new supports are due soon. just no one can predict the exact date when.