in 2009-2013 people used sourceforge and then github to openly submit proposals.

this has then been sidelined in 2013+ requiring submitting a proposal to a mailing list to have it vetted first.
then a new layer was added where it needed to be discussed in IRC or the forum before being worthy of catching peoples eye on the mailing list.

its no longer open communication but a one way street with regular checkpoints and guards

malleability fix..
LN does not need it. its a dual signing process. if the TX is malleated. it doesnt get signed. if someone wants to malleate a second tx. they cant as they need the other persons signature for the second tx too, because the data has changed.

and double spending is still an issue because blockstream introduced RBF and CPFP to cause double spends.
also you cannot even confidently trust a confirm tx of funds belong to you if the tx has a CLTV+CSV in it. you have to wait for maturity before declaring 100% immutable

linear scaling..
easy fix dont let a tx have 20,000-80,000 sigops.
if you think linear helps LN work better. you are wrong. an LN is only a 2in 2out 2 signature tx.  thus its sigops is not going to cause seconds/minutes of processing. it remains milliseconds.

again solution to linear is reduce the tx sigops limit.. which also reduces the spam of people trying to make 1mb tx's
funnily blockstream want to allow large transactions. although there is no reason for it

as for
it can actually. please wash away the "1gb blocks by tonight" nonsense you have read somewhere
the mindset of 'Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain' rhetoric is not original, nor factual..

and go with your other mindset about 10-20year's natural growth you mentioned last year.
bitcoin wont be and rationally shouldnt be the 'one world currency' or the worlds only financial system.. as that would get corrupted.. especially if blockstream becomes the IMF. removing diversity and open choice

instead take a rational 5% populous.. meaning bitcoin ranked in the top 5 'nations' of the world.
then you will see over a couple decades it is easy and manageable.

as for why i checked your post history. its more about understanding am i talking to an empty troll thats just spamming devotion of blockstream in hopes of some recognition and commission from them.. or someone that actually knows a thing or two

reasons bitcoin is not ready for mainstream

1. public keys are worse then remembering a car number plate or someones email address, even QR codes are not 100% the solution
2. decimal values, which needs you to look on another service/site to find your local currencies 'rate'
3. tx fee is more than an hours labour in a dozen developing countries (the same countries that could need bitcoin much.. but are priced out of using)
4. the code is not preventing spam and is left for 'economics' to sort.
5. the 'economics' of avoiding spam actually hurts genuine ethical users more than spammers.
6. the solution to spam is to get everyone locked into permissioned contracts, which funnily spammers will avoid as their intention is not contracted payments, but to spam.

until bitcoin is as straight forward to just buy something by simply swiping an NFC chip. thus not needing an old granny to have a brain bleed trying to fumble around.. .. bitcoin is not ready

until devs stop pretending we are all on dialup 56k internet, and actually stop halting mainnet progress.. bitcoin is not ready

blockstream are helping the banks and governments make a new system. its called hyperledger.

its not going to be a open platform for users to be free from bankers control. its going to be more control given to bankers and government.
yes medical records, bank records, tax record, driving licence, child support, passports will all be relationally linked to each other

bitcoin is being held back due to it.

https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members - general members - blockstream
blockstream are using bitcoin as the sandbox/testbed for hyperledger. slowly centralizing bitcoin and holding it back while then expanding hyperledger so that bitcoin cant compete

here is where your letting your friend shoot you in the foot.

you have a 30MBit/s upload. (3.75mbyte/s = 2.25gbyte/10minutes)
even you know bitcoin can run on a raspberry pi

and even now there is a raspberry Pi3. and bitcoin has had some efficiency gains since you done your tests last year(5x due to libsecp256k1)

so running on a Raspberry Pi3 is about 20x faster today compared to the tests you done last year.

but instead of that rational thought. you let people tell you 2mb is bad and dynamic blocks are bad and baseblock needs to halt at 1mb.

knowing you can send 2.2gb of data every 10 minutes. you want to ignore that 2.2gbyte figure your able to cope with (37.5mb with 60 connections)
and proclaim 2mb with safe incremental growth based on community node agreement is bad.

simply because someone said so. but your own numbers say the opposite than your friends are telling you.
you then want to proclaim that closing off doors to diversity of 71different implementations should be an option and only connect to one 'brand'

do you even hear yourself advocating for centralization, for no reason.

here is a kicker.. core want 4mb weight. while keeping the 1mb base not for 'data restriction' but for transaction utility restriction
so if you ever argue that non core are 'bigblockers' look at cores 4mb weight. look at non cores 2mb request.

2 or 4 which is 'bigblocker'. simply maths, simple observation. 2 or 4 which is bigger.

---

oh and please dont throw out the standard script reply your friends shout. "1gb blocks by midnight doomsday"

we both know the rational consensus of 2016-2017 is 2mb and then natural node consensus accepting growth there after

asset not commodity

gold has multiple markets. dont confuse which market gold sits on when comparing it to bitcoin.
commodities are for raw produce made to make other products.
EG wheat commodity ->bread
EG crude oil commodity->plastic, car fuel
EG gold ->circuits, jewellry

gold sits on a commodity market - circuits/jewellery - industrial use
gold sits on a asset market - investments - financial reserves use

dont talk about gold in connection to the industrial use market. as thats a whole different ballgame
talk about gold in connection to the financial market. as it still has the same 'scarce' argument your making. but atleast is better comparison to bitcoin

google Koryolink, oh look north korea have a telecommunications company. and its not a blackmarket under the table company either its actually a public service

i got intrigued by your post history..
hmm monero fanboy. i now see why you are devoted to gmaxwell and not even trying to research beyond gmaxwells centralist mindset
you dont care about bitcoins growth, your hoping for some monero riches.

let me guess you then want to cash out with some fiat riches.

goodluck with that though.

you are free to stick head in the sand and only catch a breath to see your friend with the gun warning you of gunfire while he takes aim.

how about do some research and read something. learn. have an open mind and see beyond the small box you want to put yourself in

blockstream $90m is not a free gift, its an investment that needs returns
blockstream are part of the bankers making their closed fiat2.0 - https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

cant make it up when its true.

also you mentioned nodewitness
1   /Satoshi:0.13.1/   1615 (28.87%)
2   /Satoshi:0.13.2/   997 (17.82%)
main imps total = 46.69%

satoshi:0.13.99 / 119 (2.12%)
BTCC:0.13.1/ 56 (1%)  - bob lee's managed sybil distribution
knots:0.13.2/ 19 (0.34%) - luke jr
knots:0.13.1/ 7 (0.12%) - luke jr

and out of that ~50% not all of them are explicitly voting for it. they are implicitly voting for it just by staying upto date.
some are running it to test/examine and bugfind too.

so in context there is no 'majority' or even a marginal majority explicitly in favour of it. hense why high majority is required.

LOL funny
you want to create an altcoin by blocking anything not blockstream. thats real funny
blockstream fanboys wanting to centralise by not being diverse open network, and instead close themselves off into a small box and live in cabin fever of only being fed by one master at the door.

real funny

thats about as rational as letting your best friend shoot your foot because you best friend tells you someone else might shoot your foot. but its your friend that is the only one with a gun... so you let him.. infact you try to get them to teach you how to shoot yourself in your own foot

we dont need to be at 8mb now.
but we do need more than 1mb.

nodes and pools should have dynamic block settings that gradually increase. EG all agree on 2mb for now and they dip their toe in the water at 1.001mb just to see if any bugs or issues occur (like the DB bug sipa implanted in v0.8 in 2013 when blocks wanted to go over 0.5mb)

if no bugs or large orphan rate occurs, each block can dip a bit further into the water. incrementing the size thats actually produced.
just like the progress from 0.5-1mb in 2013-2015, but at a rate thats natural and helps while reducing risk..
this may be as short as 2 days or longer depending on needs of the community.

then nodes when blocks get to 2mb. they can flag a bigger buffer number the nodes can cope with. and it plays out again safe natural dipping toe in the water to mitigate any orphan drama. growing naturally over time based on what the community as a whole can cope with.

yes people can have 8mb settings personally purely so they dont need to play with settings often and let consensus work out the safer increments under that where the community as a whole can accept.

wow you backed that up with facts. data, statistics..

.. oh wait you didnt

this i have to disagree with
blockstream NEED their LN.. not for utility. but for them becoming the hub. they already have the code to have it set up where they become the hub(removing buzzwords, they hold the DNS (peer location) seed)
they want to be the hub to charge penalty fee's and 'manage' the maturity to activate revokes. they NEED LN to start making income to repay blockstream investors.

they are in debt to a tune of well over $90m that needs repaying.
they are desperate to get LN working by a deadline or they wont get another tranche of funding. and if not hitting the deadline they need to start repaying the debt.

this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to scare people into thinking LN is the only solution.
this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to halt onchain dynamic scaling to make people think LN is the only solution.
this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to  scare people by saying false stories of "non blockstreamers want 1gb by midnight"
this is why rusty russel, sipa and maxwell are desperate to  scare people by saying false stories of "non blockstreamers are bad"

not due to it being part of bitcoins open ethos, or the benefit of the community. but due to blockstream contracts to make returns to investors

do the sheep honestly think blockstream was given $90m investment with no ROI contract, .. where by the sheep think it was a free gift

anyone out there got a uptodate analysis of the "days destroyed" stat blockchain.info used to keep
to show these blockstream sheep that not many people tx's are spent multiple times a week to actually benefit from LN.

the only people using LN are a small niche amount. (daytraders, gamblers and faucet raiders)
oh need i remind blockstream sheep that intentional spammer wont use LN because their intention is not to spend but to spam.
so they will continue spamming. LN does not solve intentional spam

need i remind blockstream sheep that LN is the paypal2.0. which if they think Ver wants centralisation due to his comment about paypal2.0, this was contextually him saying he will accept that blockstream want LN(paypal2.0) if blockstream allow dynamic blocks

good to see people reading and researching LN

now to put it into realistic scenario

when settling. and confirmed(after service). the funds are not spendable onchain straight away by the intended recipient. they are locked in for a week(papers scenario 1000 blocks)..
this is the same as banks/paypals. 3-5business days 'funds unavailable'. you can see it's confirmed but not matured to be spent.

however while the intended recipient is waiting a week. the other party can revoke those funds.
this is the same as banks/paypals chargeback feature.

so guys. while having a service that while inside the service you can swap IOU's instantly (like paying someone inside paypal) when it comes to channel closing and settling(withdrawing out and settling the account) you are on hold for a week and have risk of chargeback.

atleast understand the "after service experience" and understand its the same as you get with banks/paypal.

accept LN is not permissionless and your reliant on another party (dual signing) again like banks/paypal

oh shut up with your 1gb blocks.
seems you are spending too much time in blockstreams cabin fever box, listening to all their advertisements and doomsdays. agreeing with them because your locked in a box where its only them talking.

lets set your record straight because it sounds like its bent out of shape and just repeating the same tune of other people in a loop

1. bitcoin will not be the one world currency of 7billion..
2. it will be a free open decentralised network (onchain) but not all 7billion will use it and not all at the same time. it will/should remain a free open choice. not something people are forced to use with no other assets to hold their eggs in different baskets

ok now take todays rational 2million regular users. 0.026% population

and think of a rational number of users it will achieve in 50 years.
hint it wont be anywhere near 100%

lets say it was 5% of world finance. (making it the top 5 reserve 'nation' of the world)

thats over 50 years.. not by midnight tonight by the way.

so in 50 years is only 100mb block.. again not 100mb tonight.. but in 50 years

meaning 2mb growth a year or doubling every 7 years

both of which are achievable and manageable.

after all looking at the technology growth over the last 2 decades. i think people will laugh in 50 years that we are worried about 100mb blocks
just like we laugh at people just 20 years ago getting excited about having 32mb ram and 4gb hard drives, back then thinking that was huge. where they back then would worry about 128gb storage. and we are laughing by holding something the size of a fingernail

again dont think "world domination by midnight" think rationally realistically naturally and sensibly.

i think we need to go back to the old forum feature that people are locked in newbie jail for a bit.

it gives them time to read and understand and learn

you need to realise china have the fiat in the banks. it does not evaporate. it just changes account holders. bitcoin does not impact the banks 'value'.
you are not seeing the real world and instead thinking about some civil war which is revolutionary.. but in reality there is not a civil war happening by having exchanges.

the civil war of bitcoin is not about exchanges that swap fiat...
instead its about the retail/consumer use of bitcoin to buy things in shops instead of using fiat.
as that can result in a shop then paying a staff wages in bitcoin and then that staff member only buys stuff in bitcoin. and that shop buys its re-stock in bitcoins, which loses the banks "value" because it affects the GNP and GDP of the countries economy.

so dont think exchanges are the knife to kill a bank/government. instead think about bitcoins utility in retail, wages, lifestyle. as that is the knife of revolution

fun fact. even if china pulled the plug on the chinese internet. the pools would connect via satalite to stratums outside of china. only disruption it would cause is about 1minute of pool hopping before resuming back to usual..

but thats as we can both agree at the extreme and irrationalable concept of china pulling their internet offline.
so dont worry. bitcoin mining would continue. unhindered. pools have already mitigated these risks years ago, even the absurd near impossible risks