LOL now your just fake doomsdaying. you have got the wrong kings in mind as to who is playing with the PRICE

you are doing it by subtly confusing the umbrella term "value" when you use the term without the context of utility or price.. they are different things. and cause different results
tx/s is not about value(price)
tx/s is about value(utility)

increasing tx/s value(utility) increase value(desire) which along with deflation (value desire) sustainably increases value(price)

trainscarswreck obsession with inflation means he is not grasping the basics.

BITCOIN IS DEFLATIONARY

non blockstreamers
as for value(desire/utility)
by increasing its value(utility) you increase value(desire) which increases its value(price)

blockstreamers
by halting its value(utility) and then forcing its value(price) up, with fee filters and coded fee wars. does not mean its value(desire) can sustainably last.

trying to artificially mess with the value(price) to hope it maintains value(desire) is not a sustainable long term. which is where boom and busts/pumps and dumps occur

bitcoin is and always will be DEFLATIONARY which is of value(desire)
having it usable spendable without headache or unknown costs, delays, etc= value(utility) which adds further value(desire). which causes the value(price) to increase sustainably without boom or bust / pump and dump

to add to toknormals point.

trainscarswreck is the one not defining the proper concepts
value=price
value=desire/need

are 2 different things

you are not grasping the big picture of economics. you have simply got yourself reading a few articles but not spent time to sit back and let the context and content sink into your mind to understand them. you have just took the words on face value of how you perceive the words mean based on your quick to judge, slow to process personality.

VALUE (up or down, controlled or not controlled) is the RESULT of deflation/inflation. not the mechanism

no
inflation control is about adding more coins endlessly with no cap.. and LIMITING utility while producing endless coins.
bitcoin is deflationary over time so EXPANDING or limiting utility over time is deflationary control.

if you only want to speak to theymos. send him a PM.

not always. some coins are used for arbitrage to rinse and repeat the profiteering of bitcoin rises. and as the side affect causes a rise of some altcoins as part of an arbitrage route.

but CRAPcoins.. the ones that are not available on multiple exchanges to use as arbitrage routes do drop. and if dash loses grip of a couple exchanges to not be used for arbitrage then you wont see the occassional rise when bitcoin rises. and then that altcoin joins the crap coin scenario of dropping when bitcoin rises

when blockstreamer cultists run out of technical arguments to dgend the broken segwit. they have to scrape the barrel of social attacks.
whilst i believe 90% of blockstream cultists havnt even bothered reading code and just jump straight to the social attacks it does become funny that less and less people can defend blockstreams tech.

segwit is broke before its even used. and they are angry so have to blame someone for anything to take their frustrations out on

when bitcoin rises altcoins crash because altcoiners sell their crapcoins to ride the BTC rise.

craig wright is not satoshi

craig wright fooled the aussie government with a empty trust. by getting it notorised, to (falsely) claim its valued at XX million based on having a list of PUBLIC KEYS (anyone can grab those) (no private key)

now craig wright is patent trolling in a last ditch attempt to add 'assets'(the patents) to his trust to hope he can give that empty trust 'value' to honour the (defrauded) investments with the aussie government and other private deals.

he is doing this just to try to retroactively get value into the trust to hope it allows him to avoid jailtime, that is all

1. stop using the failed doomsday of VISA by midnight.. we are not going to reach 1billion users by midnight. so stop thinking bitcoin need to suddenly turn into visa overnight.(instead think natural long term growth)

2. compared to 2009-2012 bitcoin has already made many efficiency efforts so if bitcoin could run fine on a raspberry Pi in say 2012.. guess what. it can run MORE THAN FINE now.

3. infact technology has moved on since 2012 and raspberry Pi3 is available. for instance if libsecp256k1 made efficiency saving of 5x.. and a raspberry Pi3 is 4x(single thread) - 10x(four thread) more efficient compared to the original Pi. that makes raspberry3 in 2017, 20-50x efficiency gain compared to code of bitcoin/tech of Pi of say 2012

4. here is the important part. putting a halt on any natural onchain growth using speculation of 30 years and turning it into a fear of tomorrow. is foolish.

5.how about people take their head off the pillow and allow REAL natural onchain growth(not fake gestures of pretend growth segwit cant honour). and have side services for the offchain stuff.. and over the years as bitcoin and computer tech evolve they naturally ofset each other where over time people need to use LN less and less because the blockchain grows NATURALLY over years.

6. again for emphasis stop using the failed doomsday of visa by midnight. and think rationally about real natural growth. halting natural growth with fears that it cant grow is not solving the problem. its just creating your self fulfilling prophecy by not allowing it to grow

7. segwit is broke. opens more attack vectors and only disarms innocent people who use segwit keys but doesnt disarm the network/block. people using native nodes/keys still can do things onchain. meaning segwit doesnt fix anything

no point speculating about the year 2140. even your grandkids will be too old to care about a future they wont be part of

addressing the FUD that spam is related to pools wanting income:
pools do not care about fee's as a NEEDED INCOME. to them its just a bonus. and will continue to be a bonus for a couple decades.
the block reward will be sufficient enough to cover real costs.

those pushing the fee war are not actually the pools. but blockstream devs that have
1. tweaked the code to make the old priority formulae near useless (infact 0.14 is removing priority formula completely)
2. removed reactive fee's and replaced it with AVERAGE fee's
3. added fee filters and relay filters

all of which are biasedly making tx fee's rise even in times of low demand.

what is needed is to reintroduce a REAL and NEW 'priority formulae' mechanism that makes the infrequent LEAN tx users get cheap tx and those that want to spam by respending every block pay more. and those that want to bloat a block pay more.

that way it becomes fairer for everyone, rather than just 'everyone pay more' banker economics

---

here is one example
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding every 5-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price

no one is saying that LN is bad, IF...
IF treated as a VOLUNTARY side service like bitgo or coinbase that those who want to deposit <$50 of coin into can multispend many times a day.

but that should not mean bitcoins ONCHAIN scaling should be halted to FORCE even the infrequent users to put their life savings into an LN channel.

LN's niche is for the pocketmoney/daily spend amounts. much like the trust of third party services. because LN relies on someone else authorising your payment(dual signing) and them having the ability to revoke settlements after confirmation due to the maturity locks (much like banker 3-5 business day funds unavailable and chargebacks(research CLTV and CVS))

as for segwit. segwit solves nothing and gives little to no advantage to LN
LN is not a bloated 200 input 200 output tx. its just a 2in 2out meaning.
it doesnt care about quadratics
malleation isnt an issue due to the dual signing mechanics meaning the other party wont sign their half if the tx is malleated and definitely wont sign the same tx twice (one malleated one not)

segwits promises and requirements and benefits are empty gestures.
the real secret of segwit is not about users transaction 'fixes' but about positioning one 'brands' nodes at the center of the network as upstream filters that control black/white list nodes and filter what data the downstream nodes get and dont get.

that said. LN has utility for those wanting to spend many times a day and onchain has a utility for those wanting to spend less often.

a simple fix where a new real 'priority formulae' where it prefers to be cheap onchain for infrequent lean tx's and requires more satoshis to cover costs if you want to spend often and bloated. to then be cheaper offchain for the frequent tx's would solve things better than segwit. and do so without all the bait and switch crap that segwit is doing

no they're not.

xt, classic, bu and the other dozen nodes want ONE network where everyone is on the same playing field and using consensus.

its only blockstream that have bypassed real consensus by going soft.
its only blockstream that have nodes set up as upstream filters to control what non segwit nodes see/receive
its only blockstream that have played around with its banning and whitelisting protocols.

here is gmaxwell trying his hardest to get those not wanting to follow gmaxwell to split away.. but they laughed at him and refused to split away because that would just give gmaxwell what he wants..



READ CODE, read stats,
stop defending the humans


X% are with segwit
X% are with BU
X% are with classic
but ~60%.. yep well over 50% are UNDECIDED

so do not classify the 50-60% undecided as being in any camp just to suit some biased brand camp social games

if ethereum cannot function without gas. and if ethereum too has an actual use. thus making 'gas' essential and usable for something real.. then yes it passes the usability test that it can survive beyond some fabricated promotional period.

but if its just a Kenyewest coin. created for no purpose but to have a famous persona brand name.. and wont survive past a promotional period, because people cant use it for anything real. then treat it as a pump and dump coin/novelty.  not as a asset

lol
now learn about orphans and consensus.

attack blocks happen most days for the last 8 years.. they are dealt with by the mechanism that has always existed

part one of the video (tony veys) is not a programmer nor much of a holder.
part two of the video (johny, linked above) only has one commit and again isnt much of a holder/spender

i think both videos lacked anyone that could satisfactorily defend blockstream/core, or where those blockstream defenders are actually personally highly involved with bitcoin.

but hey thats just the social drama of peoples C.V not really the context of their opinions. which the context of which team is actually thinking about actually fixing issues.. BU wins.

segwit is an empty gesture that results in just centralising the network with its upstream nodes but still leave bitcoin unfixed.
(malicious people will continue using native nodes and manually copying/pasting segwit tx's to native nodes to open new attack vectors that core have opened up if segwit activates)

imagine a way of using LN hub to move funds from your 'contract' through the departure location 'contract' (to trigger where you want to be picked up from) and then through the destination location 'contract' and then finally to the Uber /taxi service.

then you can also do things like the 'contracts' can pay micro amounts to the locations of departure/destination as a thankyou for offering their parking space for the few minutes of being picked up and dropped off. aswell as paying the Uber/taxi service that owns the autonomous/diriverless cars.

also because it requires settling. other conditions such as revoking/settling the 'contract' can be done by promising the service gets paid and ensuring he gets paid by getting you there, or revoked if the car didnt turn up. (much like an escrow)

---

also would work with public bus services

anything can be a currency. even cigarettes in a prison.

its top of the umbrella of financial terms.
below the umbrella are a multitude of subsets/categories.

money being one of those sub categories.
if you cannot spend it and its not recognised by a community or certain populous, then its not "money".

---

bitcoin was, is and will always be an asset currency
but the "money" subcategory becomes iffy if bitcoins UTILITY becomes dampened/stalled/halted/prohibited/functionless