the market HAS millions which then needs millions on the other side to move the market(for every buyer there is a seller, for every seller there is a buyer.. thats how markets work). so adoption is already here.. but in the "needs adoption" of graphites scenario, where there was only a few people it only requires a few people to move the market.

people dont need to buy whole units of bitcoin to move a market. people can by a few sats. and counter sell a few sats to move markets up or down with little cost

---

the market cap is meaningless.. there is no actual $trillion held anywhere that are at risk
the market cap is just math.. not money.. its just the bitcoin price NUMBER multiplied
and as said previously the bitcoin price is not based on millions of people buying whole bitcoins. smaller amount of people can buy small decimal amounts and move the market cheaply

run some scenarios, learn the economics

a 51% attack does not attack the market cap..  it at worse re-orgs which transactions got confirmed in recent blocks. thus risks the value spend(moved) within said blocks. so its about the btc within transactions of a block. not the market cap
also a malicious pool doing a 51% does not gain ownership of all btc of transactions in a block so its not like the (todays stats) $28bill of value moved today ends up in some pools pockets.. it just means all people of bitcoin that received coin that day see the confirmed tx get undone and funds seen back in the sender.. coins are not destroyed or stolen, transactions are just reversed back to the sender, who can just send them again or the receiver can re broadcast the tx to get them again.. but the pool in the end does not get the coin.. so the profitability of doing an attack is not even as high as the coin daily movements. and definitely not a market cap win

---

and that slowdown of the reward amount is not something to be scared of in 2024.. run some scenarios of how many halvings need to cycle before people stop caring about the reward vs spot. and instead need to think about fees as a more important income stream.. and if you think rationally you will realise its not this year or this market/halving cycle

eventually but not now the reward will be insufficient. hence why you should learn about all the different economics at play to then run scenarios properly and rationally instead of guessing and exaggerating. play out some scenarios over 10, 20,50,100 years

bitcoin does not need expensive fes per tx now nor anytime soon. bitcoin does not need to leap to millions of transactions a second this month either..
learn scaling learn rational economics and play out some scenarios

i dont attack bitcoin i attack cores centralised roadmap.. theres a diference

doomads angry that people are not joining him in his other network(LN) which he wants to think of as bitcoin
he wants recruits believing him an copying what he says

he didnt like me comparing his games to CSW so now wants to take my comment about him forming an altnetwork cult .. and so without any brains  he then threw the insult back.. yep he cant even come up with an original insult

doomad is the one that wants people to move to another network(LN) he thinks is bitcoin
he also thinks adam back is satoshi.... sounds soo familiar

he adores core control and governance(which is authoritarian)..
he cant even come up with an original insult but just use the ones that hurt him and thinks by throwing them back it hurts the other person..
such comedy

as far as my opinion
i want bitcoin(btc) to scale, with multiple dev teams, multiple node brands with equal power but no absolute central power, all offering proposals where the best proposals moves forward by devs listening to the community needs to provide the best solutions that everyone can then agree on using real consensus(consent of the masses) and applying those features to all brands to move forward(no single solo controlling brand)

he has no clue what authoritarian/tyranny is else he would realise he wants authoritarianism/tyranny(core solo reference client control)

he cant even take 10 seconds to realise the insults i say first to him, apply to him and not the other way round. he just says them back anyway because is isnt that smart to form original idea's, doesnt do research or think about what he says.

bitcoin is not deposited into LN.. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network
as for the LN balance that goes back and forth and renegotiated.. they certainly can double spend the UTXO reference across multiple channels. there is no network wide audit in LN(as for who eventually gets to win that actual amount at settling.. only one will and it may not be your rented channel/temp channel)
and secondly assuming the honour of only using one UTXO reference as collateral for one channel.. that becomes.. wait for it "credit limit" thus even in honourable facilitation of liquidity.. the reference is just a reference of credit limit

as for extracting value. there are many ways to cheat the punishments and evade the processes.. this is why LN didnt function via just punishments but now needs things like "watch towers" and other third parties to act as escrow and other means t prevent cheating

heck there are services that do the opposite of honourable credit
look at all the services that have channels that are years old but use that reference to rent temporary channels of inbound balance
the renter is not forming some funding lock to have 50% signing control of the value as that value was locked years ago

they are just shown some meaningless amount/balance from a reference they are not part of. and that can be taken away from them easily as they are not part of the signing process.. the actual UTXO owner can just sign his own tx on his own and broadcast it with a higher fee than the "state" the renter was supposedly given


..
here is the thing
try to put all the fluffy dream utopian promotional words you ever heard about LN into a box. and tape the box up and put it aside
then do this
imagine someone has invited you to put your hard earned value into a system.. and instead of blindly reading fluffy utopia. you decide you want to scrutinise it. and test it for bugs, and battle test it for weaknesses..

now just try to not think of LN as the happy dream they promoted to you. and instead think of it as a financial system that should be scrutinised before risking value in..
have fun finding the flaws instead of finding ways to ignore the flaws.. remember its your value risk you are putting up when you play ignorant or avoid wanting to see things outside of the PR game
dont fear scrutinising something when its your money on the line.. the devs wont refund you

CSW is my inspiration???

sorry but my opinion exists BEFORE CSW because i have been in bitcoin and pointing out cores faults before CSW was even a name in the cryptosphere

i dont want him or anyone just echo chambering my words..
read my footnote.. its clear people should do their own research

CSW takes other peoples work and claims it as his own.. as we all know.. and no one wants him to do that, including me
i dont want nor need a cult. i am not part of a cult. and scammer CSW is not proof of me being in a cult. he is just an idiot

however windfury is a acolyte/disciple/mentee of doomad... much as ayres was a disciple fo CSW

i have called out many people that try to copy my words verbatim but then show they lack actual independent research to actually understand it

the difference is
doomad adores windfury, blackhat and oeleo copying doomads stupidity.. CSW adores ayres reciting CSW

there is the difference

if a twit thinks that someone that scrutinises or points out core issues must be in some CSW cult. then the twit that thinks that, is an idiot

people need to do research review and scrutinise core devs. doomad doesnt want people scrutinising core devs and will do anything to try to stop anyone from reviewing, scrutinising or pointing things out. including trying to pidgeon hole them into some lame group as his way to try to quieten the scrutiny
but in the end it makes doomad and his ilk look more like the scammer group of cultish games he tries to pideon hole associate people in

past numbers seen 100x (2011  $0.30 -> $30)
past numbers seen 40x (2011-2013 $30-> $1.2k)
past numbers seen 16x (2013-2017 $1.2k-> $20k)
past numbers seen 3.5x (2017-2021 $20k-> $70k)

we have not yet even got down to 2x yet.. emphasis we are not even tapered down to 2x yet

(ill now repeat myself in different ways just to get the point across)
i was completely LOWBALLING to show how rational $2m is by using numbers we have yet to even reach as lowball numbers

i was low balling(using smal numbers we have yet to experience)
yes it will taper off we wont see 100x again.. and thats why i was low balling
yes we will see low numbers like 3.5x 3x 2.5x . but again i low balled it to show its rationally possible

also spot market price is not the same as "adoption numbers"
even one person spending just $7.00 to buy 0.0001 bitcoin = 1btc $70,000
even one person spending just $7.01 to buy 0.0001 bitcoin = 1btc $70,100
yep one person spending an extra 1 cent can move the spot price by $100 and thats just trades of 2 people where one spends ONE CENT extra
yep one person spending one extra cent can move market cap 1.3776trill -> 1.379568trill an increase of market cap of $1.968billion.. for 1 cent spent

dont assume the spot market needs millions of people paying thousands of dollars to move the spot market

the market cap is not the same as the amount of sats that are in a tx on the blockchain moved each day
the market cap for instance you show.. has no baring on the amount of sats moved per block

you mention $1.4trill cap.. but thats not what is moved per day in blocks
rationally today
average value moved per tx 0.8912 BTC
transactions per day 453,840
404,462btc value moved per day ($28,030,519,920($28b))

yep $28billion.. not $1.4trill block attack risk

---

the main reason i am pointing out the many different categories of economics involved in bitcoin, things like:
spot market deflation
reward halving cycles
minimum fee's per tx (instead of max fee of stupidly high $$ amount)
minimum fee's per block as base start points to rationall grow from (instead of max fee of stupidly high $$ amount)

transactions that can be leaner to fit more in 'stuck block size'
transactions that can be cleaner to fit more in 'stuck block size'
rational scaling of blocksize to allow more transactions in scaling blocksize

so you can put all these different things into running a scenario of rational growth (not extremes) to show we dont need to leap in fee's or transaction amounts in months. but instead if you take things rationally over years, decades.. things are not as feared as some stories i think the OP read and feared or does not understand

$2mm is not about now. nor 2140
lets use the $70k ATH of the currently ending market halving cycle (2020-2024)
2024-2028 (low rational 2x) $140k (3.125btc reward * 140k=$437.5k fiat block reward)
2028-2032 (low rational 2x) $280k (1.5625btc reward * 280k=$437.5k fiat block reward)
2032-2036 (low rational 2x) $560k (0.78125btc reward * 560k=$437.5k fiat block reward)
2036-2040 (low rational 2x) $1.02m (0.390625btc reward * 1.02m=$437.5k fiat block reward)
2040-2044 (low rational 2x) $2.04m (0.1953125btc reward * 2.04m=$437.5k fiat block reward)
so $2m in 20 years time(way under the 120 year) is easily rational.. where we can start to suggest that fee's become a bit more important as a bonus
(i am not saying the spot market only needs to 2x.. it can 3x, 4x.. i only used 2 X as a low ball rational easy optimism)
we can speculate on the 3x 4x of spot market futures. and how that affect mining rewards of the next 20 years, let alone the hundred years after that

but you said $2m is too optimistic and i simply responded with rational maths to say it is rational
for now.. but once project Artemis is gold mining asteroids, bringing back 100tonnes of gold per payload(multiple trips per year), then we will see the gold market grow too, enjoy that thought in the next 20 years


i am not talking about now's fee total capacity when fee''s are not essential. i suggested using these as base points, to then use as scaling progresses over the years.. for future dates where by you then have to play out the need for fee's not now, not in a decade but in many decades when the block reward declines to give more importance to fee's need
noting, and for emphasis: that not now but in the future more transactions per block will bump up the fee total via number of transactions

so play it out where the transactions per block increase at a rational scaling over years. to the point in the future of many decades

EG if in 20 years where 1btc is $2m and if.. blocks were stuck for 20 years at 16k tx per block even if lean and clean block of 4mb remained.. then yes $80k for 1sat/byte is small..
but thats using the base number assumption of a block stuck at 4mb and just made leaner and cleaner..
now do some scaling assumptions and other rational movements over the years

then they choose to settle.. much like a bank can decide to call in the debt
you choosing to settle and pay up the debt or the other party decides to call in the debt. are both are still part of 'buy now pay later' known schemes

the fund locking and unlocking is not part of LN its part of broadcasting NOT TO LN but to bitcoin
when you know the difference between the functions and data thats processed in LN vs whats processed on the bitcoin network then you learn the differences of whats LN and whats Bitcoin

before even increasing the blocksize.. we actually clean up the code to decludge the apartheid/segregation* campaign
and actually allow 4mb of true transaction byte counting, by cleaning up the code of the cludge that allowed miscounting and ignoring of bytes of a tx

so now imagine we have 4mb of full utility clean lean tx use, properly accounted and validated and purposeful and all transaction formats having freedom to utilise the full 4mb blockspace equally
*legacy only at the front quarter of the bus, miscounted metadata at the back 3/4 of the block (hope you get the tongue in cheek metaphors)


a lean tx can be less that 250byte, even less than 200byte.. heck there are ways to be under 150byte
but lets go with 250byte average instead of the old 1kb average

thats 16,000 tx instead of 4000tx

we dont need to force users to pay $60 $600 $1600 per tx

because the blockspace between now and the year 2140 shouldnt stay at low 4mb
now run scenarios based on the next 100 years, not of leaping to extremes within months. but progressive growth..
and not having to hinder growth to force fee increases

if 1btc was $2m (spot market only 2x for a few halvings until peaking to $2m/btc and that became stable price(volatility slowed down))
then 1 sat is $0.02
and a 226byte tx is $4.52 at 1sat/byte (legacy = real byte counting and a 2in-2out tx)
(or average tx of 250byte is 250sat=$5/tx)

thats a minimum of $80k at 1sat/byte with 16,000 tx
by moving to say 6mb thats then $120k minimum

emphasis
we dont need to force fee's any time soon.. the blockreward and the spot price deflation can cover miners for many more halvings.

play out 100 years, in a rational scenario
remember hard drives grew from 4gb to 4tb in 20 years
remember internet grew from 0.5mb to 500mb in 20 years
remember spot price deflation will look after miners for many more halvings(decades) so calm down of "fee war" requirement anytime soon

play out 100 years, in a rational scenario

a dynamic size that has upper and lower limits that adjust..
um going down in size is harder to control as you then have to do silly mile stones of accept 4mb upto X blocknumber(height) then only accept 3mb upto x block number if you want the size lower limit..

its much easier to just SCALE(slowly progress) in a upward way not a constant yo-yo up and down.. and when i say scale(slowly progress) in a upward way.. no its not leaping to millions of megabytes in a month... and no its not move to a small increase once a decade

but it doees mean doing things like each difficulty retarget.. where every Xfew months, year or halving move forward based on high % fill per block over X blocks as the decision maker where code sets the blocksize target growth.. not dev politics of having to code and adjust milestones every so often manually
EG if 52500 blocks(1 year) =X gb(of Y gb(95%)) then increase blocksize by Z%
whereby current would be x=200 y=210
where the code itself keeps the variables re-targetting/updated and not need devs to manually dictate/decide the next adjustment next year

as for your math

a 4mb block is 4000000bytes
if fees are 25sat/b = 100,000,000sat (1btc)
if 1btc=$250k then a block gets $250k not $62k
which over a day(144 blocks)=$36m not $9m

you also say 25sat/byte
where currently there is a average of 4000tx per block (1kb/tx)
so individuals pay 25,000sat per tx, which assuming your demo of 1btc=$250k 25,000sat = $62.50 per tx average
if fees go to 650sat/b so individuals pay 650,000sat per tx,  = $1625 per tx average
people just wont want to use bitcoin if tx fee were $62.50 each minimum with your assumed tx fee increase to $1625

the "penalty" is not as strict as you think. its not a guarantee.. enjoy looking into it..

LN is not the bitcoin network. LN is the IOU network
you lock up the collateral on the bitcoin network and pay later when you close the LN channel
inside the LN channel you are using pegged value of unsettled IOU balance
enjoy learning that
you dont pay and settle inside LN.. you buy now pay later inside LN and pay when you close LN to settle
enjoy learning that

when you learn how channel creations are flimsy and penalties are not reinforced/guaranteed. and how bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network.. you will learn that inside LN things are not as you beleive them to be

i mention CSW because its THIS TOPIC

also your gang of idiots form your own lies and echo chamber it and then approach moderators to then get moderators involved by telling moderators that you dont like what others say, then you use the moderators that hug you as your claim..

sucking up and ass kissing like a cult does not form fact.. the cult games are not fact creators. they are echo chambers of lies. same as CSW
creatng a narrative,recruiting idiots to repeat a narrative, popularise a narrative .. doesnot then make that narrative fact.. instead it just circle jerks stupidity and becomes confirmation bias of a lie.. digging your own hole until you cant escape your own grave

now go learn from the block data and code. not from some cult group of social drama and ass kissing idols circle jerking each other

i have no mentor, you are stuck in the cult games that you think everyone not in your cult must be in another
try a new mindset.. escape the cults and have an independent opinion without idols

i dont want ass kissers i am not an ass kisser.. there is a good reason i have said many times and even have it in my footnote
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

there have been people over the years that then try to copy my words, word for word without independent thought, and i have called them idiots too.. yep when i highlight flaws in core dev policy and altcoiners and other people then use that 'word for word' for their own attack. i do call them out for not even doing their own research and instead sounding like a sheep repeating something
i am not looking to form a group. i have not been or want to be part of a group.. and just because others say something i said does not mean im pigeon holed into a group

just do your own research and stop playing the cult games or you will become just as stupid as CSW with his games
and by research, i mean actual research using real code and data sources.. NOT repetition of someone you idolise that has their own agenda
... stop playing the games of trust of idols. it wont help you.. as shown by the last few years of your posts

stop obsessing about LN prospects/plans of future
LN cant succeed due to failures of LN

.. now start thinking about other subnetworks that could do other tasks below bitcoin.. new subnetworks made from scratch that actually offer proper niche services(more securely/les flawed)..
dont start talking about how bitcoin is viewed and how it doesnt succeed where ethereum did.. instead see bitcoin has potential for financial utility of bitcoin and niche services for subnetworks.. dont get stuck in the bitcoin or LN as only option where bitcoin becomes junk and only LN becomes financial.. those are not the only options going forward.

there doesnt need to be one solo subnetwork everyone needs to move to and avoid bitcoin mainnet use..

fees (amount of sats) per transaction DOES NOT need to increase. they actually need to decrease

reasons:
a. the spot price per sat can increase to pay miners bills
b. the amount of transactions per block should and can and need to increase

by having more transactions and a better spot price per sat will incentivise miners, without making bitcoiners stop using bitcoin
by having more transactions per block means people individually can pay less, thus about to stay active, whilst giving a total tx income per block a boost
however
by having individual bitcoiners pay more and have less ability to transact will cause more centralisation due to lack of use of bitcoin due to limited transactions and costly transactions

miners are not paid per transaction. they are paid by total per block. so allowing more transactions is a better solution rather than enforcing individuals pay more and limiting how many transactions can be made, further pushing those remaining active to pay even more

analogy:
a rail-train operator does not increase profits, efficiency of passenger transport by removing economy seating of 60 chairs per carriage. replacing it for 6 business class chairs that are only reserved for the furry/cosplay convention
instead they extend the carriages to have more seating to allow more passengers to frequent the trains and get more income via the popularity of passenger transport(their purpose) via lower priced tickets individually but benefits by higher total income per carriage due to it

..
and please dont be idiots to respond that bitcoin then needs to suddenly jump or leap to millions of transactions a second.. thats just a stupid extreme fearmongering absurdity of huge numbers that dont even mean anything.. said just to ignore rational scaling.. (scaling does not mean sudden massive leaps)

bitcoin is its own economic ecosystem, if devs cant work out how to sustain their own life using bitcoin, with bitcoin.. thats on them
when it comes to "following the money" of devs, yes we should scrutinise the developers governing the network. we should not be blind to it (unlike what doomads cult wants) we should scrutinise and review them and look at their intentions for the network and what is actually controlling the decisions of the networks direction (unlike what doomads cult want)

funny side note: doomad and i agree on scrutinising CSW sponsorships/money influence of a crapcoin.. shame he doesnt want the same background checks of bitcoin governance

doomad wanting the core devs to be not independently reviewed via outsiders, nor scrutinised and nor talked about when they make moves that dont benefit bitcoiners but do benefit fiat loving people trying to scam and defraud users via recruiting people to other networks for the purpose of getting ROI for the sponsors of the devs.. well thats on doomad and his cult of other network adorers that some core devs think the agenda of bitcoin should move over to

analogy of US government
doomad is the guy that wants trump to run the US and not want anyone to ever suggest having elections after he gets into power, and then suggest no one should ever question his decisions.. thats tyranny
doomad doesnt want the US run by multiple states where different political parties all run within the government with elections that change to over time, he doesnt want consent of the masses, he doesnt want scrutiny, transparency
doomads view of open source is to publish Trump laws for all to see, but doesnt like outside input of draft/pre-law discussion that could veto a Trump law made by trump and his family. but any law made by other states or other candidates should be told to move to mexico or canada and try out their pledges there
(to doomads usual responses about me using american terminologies instead of british(as his way of evading the point): yes im british but majority or readers of this forum understand the american political/economic system more than the british system hence using american analogies make more sense)

to put it in british terms. doomad would love it if britain remained in the david cameron tory era and had no elections after that, tory forever and never scrutinised

"buy now, pay later"
think about it

when using LN as a credit facility. you agree to pay someone at a later date(closing) which is a IOU
credit/iou is debt

yes you can always close the channel and pay off your debt sooner.. and yes if you are not renting balance then its like 0% interest creditline

A:10 -> 0:B:10-> 0:C

A wants to buy something for 5 from C, so enters a credit agreement (smart contract)
A:05 -> 05:B:05-> 05:C

when they close, the debt is settled. but until then A has a 'buy now pay later' where it uses B as a credit line for C. so
A owes B 5
B owes C 5

you can pay off B sooner or later but until close there is IOU waiting
(oh and many ways to default, bankrupt, evade paying(via flaws and bugs). and also many ways the payment can be forced via the other side sooner then you intend(via flaws and bugs),

and ways to scheme/switch the funds to replace you as payee to B for another person as payee to B via a route rebalance so that you then owe someone else in another routepath via re-balance) which in the world of credit/debt is called refinancing or balance transfer

---

here is the thing about currency, regulations of currency, etc..
when B acts like a route.. they are acting as a MSB (money service business) because they are facilitating a payment for another party for a fee. this fee is considered as commission or in terms of credit/debt. the interest/commission

a couple years ago the idiot group pretended that new regulations were a threat to bitcoin devs, miners and bitcoin node users being considered MSB(the lie) the real threat was to the subnetwork scene of routers being considered MSB

i sincerely hope you realise that when acting as a router. you then become a target of regulations of needing to become a MSB, and regulators know this and are currently drafting mechanisms to enforce it(which is why LN devs try to get people to darknet their nodes(and made false promises of privacy, which is broke))
and yes at later dates people will realise having their own locked value as credit collateral,  and enabling their channel to be a route = regulation requirements thus end up just renting balance from a MSB to evade regulations. (but that move is yet to flourish, but keep them in mind for now)

by not measuring in USD (the point of my scenario)
if you mean the market would be 3333 MWHU (equating to($15*3333) $50k)

then the nigerian cost of 3333MWHU * N373 = N1.24m
and the game can still be played

imagine this as a way we could counter the wallstreet manoeuvres of forex(much like the activism of gamestop did on wallstreet)

imagine we stopped measuring bitcoin vs USD which then assumes other fiat currencies:BTC via forex... to instead measure bitcoin vs "minimum wage hour units MWHU"
whereby as an example bitcoin was lets say 4660 MWHU

whereby for instance if USD min wage was $15. an american wanting to buy bitcoin would need to pay $~70k
whereby for instance if UK min wage was ~£11.44 a brit wanting to buy bitcoin would need to pay ~£53k
whereby for instance if nigeria min wage was ~N373 a nigerian wanting to buy bitcoin would need to pay ~N1.73m

people would soon work out. they could sell bitcoin for USD.. convert USD to naira buy bitcoin using Naira, repeat and then see how the balance between Naira and USD changes

1btc = $70k = 88,000,000N = 50btc
50btc = $3.8m = 44000000000N = 2500btc

it wouldnt take much for wallstreet to then react to then change the 1:50 peg of $ to N(allow the circuit breaks to not trigger to allow the prices to move more inline)

is yourself, oeleo blackhatcoiner, doomad and the other couple people in the echo chamber group of idiots that treat themselves like a cult club repeating the same mantra hosted by doomad as lead idiot(playing the same games as CSW)

your idiot group even keep trying to define lightning network as being the bitcoin network

you are not a core dev, nor is your mentor or his acolytes.. you lot are just a silly fanclub.. learn the difference.. you dont even understand nor want to learn code, so how can you claim that "group of idiots" refers to core devs, when its clear that when i call you a group of idiots and you know who im talking about, you pretend im talking about another group

i know you want to pretend you are in the same league as core devs because, but your not. so stop trying to associate yourself

the group of idiots is clearly you and your mentor.. yep blackhatcoiner, doomad and the other idiots are not core devs.. they are just a cultish fanbase of certain core devs(that desire a full migration of bitcoin users to move to their favoured lightning network) you lot formed a religion around this philosophy, chanting it

learn the difference
you are playing the same games as CSW. and your not even smart enough to realise it
its time you start having thoughts of your own, and stop blindly idolising and copying what some cult leader says, before you become as poisonous in social drama as CSW crowd

this was a necro topic. newbie bumped it without reading other topics of similar content

the summary of the topic is satoshi was not trying to deceive people. instead certain documents and web browsers had their spell check and grammar check set to different regions and sometimes ignoring the red/blue squiggle underlines announcing a spelling/grammar mistake was corrected or not used to not correct it to whatever regional spelling of english the browser he used was set to

in this very post, my browser had 6 red squiggly lines whilst writing. i changed 3 and left 3 alone. enjoy working it out