much like this topic
your presuming the increase in mempool was due to...........
black friday? spam?

have you ASKED why, RESEARCHED why, or just presumed.
oh one more hint. you can actually get the blockchain data, get all the multisigs and analyse it and see the inputs and outputs and see correlations, patterns of usage.

yes LN needs bitcoins mainnet. and we should increase transaction capacity ONCHAIN due to that need.

however if you read the stuff core and LN devs are saying. they are overselling LN as a system where channels never need to close.
which brings up the issues/concerns. about immutability, trust, permissioned transactions, loss of bitcoins ethos.

if we went with LN's rhetoric of never needing to close channels.. then bitcoins mainnet is never needed once funds are deposited.
can you atleast see the twisting of mindsets about the importance of bitcoins mainnet.

rationally LN should regularly close channels. thus ONCHAIN capacity IS important. aswell as the security of users funds

pretending there is no answer, is different then not asking the question. please try to atleast learn why things happen instead of relying on unknown reasons.

because having no clue of the reasons makes any statistic you give less worthy, as it has no context.
yes there may be multiple reasons. but not even investigating a single reason or multiple reason makes the stats worthless as anything important

yes people are actually currently moving funds to multisigs.. but you are not asking WHY.
even though i dont 'need' multisigs, i have moved funds over to a multisig... do you want to know WHY.

to play out some LN scenarios

im glad to see you are starting to research though, so i will atleast give you a pleasant
have a nice day

but you have not asked yourself why.. or asked bitfury why.. here is the answer

if you think LN should reign supreme, i have to remind you of something (i did warn you)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1450783.msg16998029#msg16998029

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "we need to be like visa today"
seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "7billion people using bitcoin today"

seems everyone is trying to shout doomsdays of "bitcoin cannot cope with it today"

so lets be rational.
the 4mb BLOAT size increase has no correlation to transaction capacity increase.
the 2.1mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where LN (dual permissioned multisigs) channel opening and closing reign supreme
the 1.8mb capacity size increase is based on a scenario where peer to peer(permission-less) reign supreme. (bitcoins ethos)

so sticking with bitcoins peer-to-peer permission-less ethos. rationally, segwit is only offering a ONE TIME 1.8x capacity 'side effect boost'.
it a one time event. so 'scaling' is not a buzzword that sits beside one time event.

LN should not be the compulsory solution to capacity 'scaling', to attain a higher (2.1mb+(2.1x)) capacity. LN just remain a side SERVICE that is an open choice.

now thats the short term mindset everyone should have.

---

as for the future.

at 1.8mb (1.8x capacity) side effect of segwit.. the other 2.2mb BLOAT size buffer (bringing total weight to 4mb) should not be wasted on arbitrary data and features that do not enhance capacity. (such as confidential payments)
we need to stick to lean clean transactions.

afterall bitcoin is a financial system, not a store of arbitrary data.

so concentrating on future TRANSACTION CAPACITY (not bloat). bitcoin CAN dynamically grow, naturally over years.

which is where a 2mb base 4mb weight. still falls within cores happy numbers of bloat, but allows less arbitrary data to keep the blockchain lean and clean and concentrating on transaction capacity

as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to jump to 100gb blocks today
as time passes that can be increased. there is no need to hold it back at low limits today

---

bitcoin does not have 7.5billion users now. bitcoin will never have 7.5billion users.
the fee war alone is pricing out over 1 billion people as it is, so cool down on the whole 'one world currency utopia'. and think rationally
 

lol seems you have the wrong hat on today.

yet dynamic blocksize implementations have been publicly released AND RUNNING since last year..
but took core a 10 months to REWRITE their entire implementation.

cores implementation is not just a simple patch, it was a whole rewrite.
i really think its time you learn C++


firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb)
the 4mb weight limit has no correlation to capacity. the base block and witness does..
which is having a one time side effect on capacity increase, but cannot scale. EG you cannot re segwit a segwit, so has nothing to do with scaling. its a one time boost. stop over selling it.

secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN. (but your just twisting 'why' its not directly involved with LN)
much like seeing a baby take its first step doesnt mean all babies should be entered into a cities marathon race event.

but without being able to take a certain step early on, marathons in the future would never happen.

lets atleast not think that marathons are made compulsory for anyone able to walk in the future.
lets atleast not think LN is compulsory for anyone able to use bitcoin in the future.

so i hope i never see you in the future talk about LN as the solution to scaling. or i will have to refer you to this post to remind you

though code is not finalised. the mindset and concepts are becoming established. by atleast talking about it and making people aware of the concepts being stupid, may tempt the devs to change it before its locked into code..
rather than staying quiet with a wait and see and then have to put up with their code because they were not told what users want and dont want early on.

LN so far, are focused more on incentivizing nodes to stay active by making them profitable.

seems like your asking the big question about why bitcoin is such a big invention, and why immutability is important.

yes, thats the whole point. able to change who deserves what and how much they deserve. done in seconds rather but not secured by bitcoins PoW.
if funds were as secure as bitcoins blockchain while in LN. then we wouldnt need miners..


also remember bank accounts is a choice for the user, whether he or she wants to use it or not. but users can verify thieir balance when they count out the bank notes when closing a bank account

thats very loose logic.. thats like saying dont worry about bank accounts you can always ask them to write you a cheque and get your account closed. and use the cheque to buy gold

yes as a choice, i see its utility for gambling, exchanges, faucets, advertisers.
as for what they are choosing. people atleast have to be aware of the choice. and some people need to be reminded it is just a choice and not try pushing it as bitcoins only future solution.

as for how its deemed banking managed system
DUAL SIGNING. imagine a hub as a local bank branch. lets say there is a walmark bank2.0, starbucks bank 2.0, etc. where the funds are not exactly yours because you need permission from a separate entity to change how much you deserve and permission to separate yourself from their control to go back to the open network (bitcoin mainnet).

shying away from negatives and sitting on hands not even talking about issues solves nothing and doesnt help to make people aware of the whole picture.

having a sit back, shut up and wait and see attitude is something that lets a small group decide the direction of the masses because they are not told anything different. we as a community should be active and part of deciding "what users want". because we are the users, we are all bitcoin and we all should not put "trust" in a small group of people.

firstly. LN was envisioned due to your exact theory.. a background mechanism for exchanges.. blockstream made a private "liquid" network using multisigs. and then realised it could be used more broadly.. and thus LN concepts came to fruition.

it must be noted that channels need to be closed because the locktimes expire due to time and utilizing the time to make old 'payments' irrelevant, thus it runs out of time sooner to keep latest relevant and needs to close to secure a most relevant mutually agreed 'payment' before older LN payments become relevant.

EG imagine now its 02:00:00 26th Nov 2016 that the 'deposit' is paid.
with a locktime of say 03:01:00 26th Nov 2016 (1h1m) for simple explanation
first payment in LN you set and agreed to make it more relevant but unspendable until 03:00:59
next payment in LN you set and agreed to make it more relevant but unspendable until 03:00:58
next payment in LN you set and agreed to make it more relevant but unspendable until 03:00:57
and so on

obviously it doesnt mean you can do 3660 transactions(1h1m).
because:
you may not transact for 10 minutes. meaning you missed out on 600 possible alterations to the locks by doing nothing.
EG time is 02:10:00 - you cant write a tx locked to be unspendable until 02:00:01 because that time has passed.
you can only alter the locks while available locktimes exist ahead of realtime meaning doing nothing for 10 minutes leaves you only 3060 possible tx's

you may not transact for 40 minutes. meaning you missed out on 2400 possible alterations to the locks by doing nothing.
EG time is 02:40:00 - you cant write a tx locked to be unspendable until 02:00:01 because that time has passed.
you can only alter the locks while available locktimes exist ahead of realtime meaning doing nothing for 40 minutes leaves you only 1260 possible tx's

also because
if you opened the channel at 02:00:00 and instantly done 3659 tx's in milliseconds. the altered locktimes have now got to 02:00:01. so you have to close the channel to broadcast that most relevant 02:00:01 tx before older transactions become relevant/spendable

i read it and i can see the theories you are trying to establish.. but i think you need to do a bit more research.
i can see atleast 3 issues which can easily pull apart your debate.

here is a hint about one of them.
the cost to mining pools, you debate about the fee:reward ratio.. but your forgetting another HUGE metric that causes your theory to fall flat.

ignoring kiklo's endless attempts to try selling his zeit altcoin as something better by shaming bitcoin..

LN can be considered a bank network.
afterall.. what is a bank

a system where your not in full control of your funds.
the bank can put limits on your spending habits by refusing to authorise transactions
customers require the banks authorisation/agreement.
the only recourse in a disagreement is to close the account

although LN is not a central bank. it is a next gen localised bank. where LN hubs become the new bank branch managers

you can glorify LN as being linked to the open bitcoin network should a customer want to close channel.

but thats just like saying a bank manager of a local bank branch is a glorified accountant supervisor who has no control of SWIFT/cheque clearing house should a customer wish to close their account and take funds elsewhere.

accepting what LN is.. a side option/service. rather then an endgoal solution to bitcoin.. is the way to think about it.
LN has utility for fast action users like satoshidice, faucets, etc. but its not the solution for everyone

---

oh and as i was saying about the 'concepts' the LN devs are coming up with that are CONS

if anyone wants to know about one of the ECONOMIC methods or thwarting DDoS (rather than code)
if anyone wants to know about one of the ECONOMIC methods or thwarting extortion/deceit (rather than code)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html
half way down it says "results" where you can download their open office spreadsheet that displays the prepay buy in and all the penalty fee's

yea i facepalmed reading it
conclusion was the buy-in fee of 0.006(~$4) was not high enough to impact an attacker. (2nd facepalm: the whole posted didnt mention using CODE to fix risk)

sorry for late reply.

to mitigate risks.
when the casino accepts zero confirms.. they do a few things.

1. they know that when you deposit. your then playing in their house. so while the tx is confirming they can make you lose yor game or hold ot on the withdrawal until the deposit confirms.

2. while unconfirmed, they look at the inputs (where you got the funds) for tell tell signs of risk of it not confirming. EG low fee. or spotting you simultaneously writing a second transaction using the same inputs. opting for RBF, seeing if in the inputs if there was any sign of you trying to double spend before. etc etc.
but point number one is usually the case.. dont pay out unless deposit confirms

what if i told you:

there was code that stopped people writing messages into the blockchain to help make blocks only contain lean transaction data.
there was code that stopped people respending funds for 1-6 confirms to stop spamming the blockchain with the same funds over and over.
there was code that allowed millions of people to transact ONCHAIN without bottlenecking the network because there were no bottlenecks..
there was code that allowed the ONCHAIN  possible bottlenecking to open wider at a healthy and natural rate over time.
there was a balance that as unbottlenecked demand increases, pushes the bitcoin valuation up so that pools get more fiat for their blockreward.. so that fee's remain just an insignificant 'bonus' for all of the next 120 years

in short
what if code solved all the things that 'fee's were introduced to prevent' so that over 120 years (not days or weeks) the fee did not have
to rise sharply.

now with that in mind.
what would you consider as a happy worldwide no barrier of entry acceptable fee price?

incentivising them is not easy or even advantageous..

all that will happen is 1-2 corporations running 20,000 nodes all running on AWS each, to grab the incentive.. then the 5000 oldtimers who are left with nothing, will feel that they are not being paid and (unknowingly) think the network is secure with 20,000 nodes.. so they would switch off.

leaving the network in the hands of 1-2 entities and the copies of the blockchain in a centralized single location (amazon service).

the problem with incentives is. rich guys pool their resources to get a leader advantage and claim a majority of incentives.
just take a look at the future industries that 'invested' in trump and now going to become the leaders of their industry with nice large government grants heading their way.

incentives do not mean better security.

though it can be seen as fast 'processing'.. if the method for customer to get into a channel with <retailer>, locking in enough funds. and then only using it do a weekly shop... then i don't see so much of an advantage. (even using the multi-hop feature)


i see it having great utility for faucets, google adsense, kimDotcom, satoshidice gambling..
but the occasional spender who only does 4-42 transactions a month.. current concepts of 10day channel sessions and fee/penalties are not going to be "consumer friendly" for the retailer.

its like a retailer has and customer need to keep closing and opening a new 'bar tab' every fortnight. just so they can process payment in miliseconds. even if the customer only spends once a week..

its not really the utopian solution for everyones spending habits so should not be seen as the 'solution' for bitcoin.. just an addon service.. like BITGO have...

lol oh look "pay someone to watch your channel"...

and there he was just a couple sentences before pretending its not turning it into a MANAGED system..
end of rant about that person. who i dont want or need a reply from

i will say his last paragraph about people switching off fullnodes due to prefering to just use an LN node. is a con and valid con
i will say his other paragraph about theft can happen and is a con and valid con

funny how i said those 2 cons to him awhile back.. but atleast he is accepting them as threats to bitcoin/LN users. the awakening has begun


anyway ontopic

strange thing is that the flaws can be coded out to not require fee's, bribes, penalties, or management, supervisor costs... but instead its just another fee based model that cares more about economics than bug fixing using code.

though in concept.. one LN dev went to the extent of making a spreadsheet about all the penalties, costs and profits. and highlighted to utilise just for 10 days required a 0.006btc (~$4) prpaid buy-in/deposit) fe just to use LN to cover possible costs of using it. where it only become 'cheap' if doing thousands-their estimate of 80,000 tx in 10 days. (i facepalmed: no average consumer would accept)

---

again. if people treat LN as a SIDE SERVICE and are fully aware that funds are no long in sole discretion but instead dual signed (managed) and that fee's are involved. much like a bank.

then it gives people a clear and open minded choice to use it.

but to try suggesting it should be 'the solution' for bitcoins future and then under-admit the flaws, just to sell a utopian dream... thats where issues start to begin.

the issue is how well its programmed.

some are seeing one LN using economics (fees) to penalize users for extortion, DDoS, closing channels early etc.
some are seeing one LN using code to prevent users for extortion, DDoS, closing channels early etc.

so its still too early to judge the public release, and we can only talk about whats in design and try shouting out the flaws so that the public release is functional and not stupidly engrained with things that are a barrier of entry.

pro's:
a free choice to sit beside bitcoin for those doing high transaction volumes such as gambling/daytrading/faucet raiding.
not to be used as a scaling future direction. just a tool those doing high volume can use.

cons
possible prepay fes and penaltyies to use, causing barrier of entry
stupidly considered the future direction of bitcoin by shifting people away from immutable transactions.
requires dual signing (permissioned funds) which puts users back into the 'banking' managed systems

find positive news articles.

alot of fiat lovers would trust bitcoin if they seen the government positive about it. where senators, ministers mention bitcoin positively

http://www.afr.com/technology/senate-committee-says-bitcoin-should-be-treated-as-a-regular-currency-20150731-gior3u
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/rand-paul-bitcoin-presidential-campaign-donations

you could also search out local retailers that accept bitcoin.


then you can show him how many times FIAT has failed people
credit card hacks
pick pocketing
ransoms

thus showing bitcoin is a currency like anything else. its just not understood because its still early and has yet to grow
then give him about $10 of bitcoin and tell him not to use it. but instead hold it and check the valuation every few months.

when the price goes up ask him is it more then the 0.01% interest rate he would have got if he just had $10 in a bank account

based on first line of squares

QSWSEECPZ
or
OGQGKKSGR

young grass hopper
a bonzai tree may only grow 2foot. and so would require a forrest of bonzai to feed all the leaf cutter ants onroute.
but a 300ft redwood is stronger than a forrest of separate bonzai and can feed all the ants. as long as you let the redwood tree grow.

the problem is not that bitcoin cant scale.. its that bitcoin is being prevented from scaling by.. HUMANS, especially those in the pockets of bankers
bitcoin doesnt need to be XXXmb tomorrow.. it can SCALE naturally and DYNAMICALLY as time passes over the next 120 years.

the funny part is
holding back scaling, while then crying bitcoin needs to go sideways because it cant scale.. is like a self fulfilling prophecy

you prophecize that tomorrow you wont be able to walk on both feet.. because you shot yourself in the foot the night before.