it wont kill bitcoin immutability

hard consensus does not delete old blocks. old blocks remain. the immutibility is sustained
thats the whole point

its soft consensus that allows rule changes without nodes being ready to perform validity checks

please learn some basic concepts it seems you are just reading old propaganda crap from 5+ years ago

changing rules. hard or soft is about future blocks.. thus nothing to do with immutability( existing blocks)

though yes some idiot can completely do stupid things like make their node reject any block containing for instance legacy tx. and then doing Initial Block download.. thus rejecting every block. but then they are just rejecting their own blockchain acceptance and throwing themselves off the network

---

soft= new stuff activates without majority nodes requirement to being ready to fully validate the new stuff because they just stupidly accept new stuff as valid without checks

hard= nodes need to upgrade to be ready to validate new stuff before the new stuff activates.

learn the risk options that occur when going soft. where things get added to a block and treated as accepted without nodes checking/verifying/validating it as acceptable.. by blindly accepting it without consent/choice/check


hard consensus requires majority of node agreement(consent) before changes activate
soft does not require majority of node agreement(consent)

its the soft you should be concerned about..
.. take some time to think about it

you forget. that if everyone had an average of $900 node
and 9 channels of $100

there is then the "pass the parcel" game of liquidity

EG if someone was to spend $500 via using 5 routes. it then unbalances all the people on the routes of them 5 routes

like i said try and run some scenarios either drawn out or using excel.. try to design the most utopian network you can think of then run it through some scenarios that are less than best case utopian dream..*

you will find when those 5 first hops try to rebalance back their one route it then unbalances someone else. and so on. and they try to rebalance back theirs which brings back the first hop out of balance

in the end most people are not making actual payments. they are just rebalancing balances when each other is rebalancing theirs. like a tug of war

*most people using LN only wish to do best case scenarios because they fear losing value if they tested anything else but utopia. so take a step back. and run scenarios that are less then utopia on your utopian drawn network. because doing it on paper/drawing/excel has no real world risk/cost. but gives you freedom to think outside of the best case dream

an active male needs about 1gram of protein per kg of body weight
an average 90kg male needs 90gram of protein.
average meat is 30gram protein per 100gram of meat.. so that is 300gram of meat per day

which UK prices is (£6/kg = £1.80 A DAY)
yep 300gram of meat(90gram of protein) is the DAILY amount not meal amount
1kg of veg is £1
meaning you can split the meat and the veg for £2.80 a day over 3 meals

google suggests US chicken breast is $1 per 100gram. meaning $3 a day for meat

order of priority(top is best advice)


eating out usually costs 3-5x more then cooking from scratch

bulk purchase and looking for sales. dont work well, because most sales are of items near their use by date. and if buying in bulk you are buying more then you may need before use by date
only find the reduced stuff for small meals you are likely to eat same day/next day
only find the bulk deals on the regular items you consume the most often

also its counter intuitive to make an inventory to limit buying more then you need then say buy in bulk/stockpile
short answer is buy in bulk only items you use alot and only if they are in good discount by buying more then one

eating left overs means you didnt portion control the preparation very well

you only gave measurements of first 4
so i gave you the UK prices from UK Aldi and converted for you

although those are prices based on kg of weight. it should be noted that there may be actual differences of TRUE weights and measures

Eg a large egg in germany may be a medium egg in the uk(or vice versa)
the amount of brine pumped into meat may differ from country to country (pre-cook weight)

you lot do realise that retailers raise the prices. and then do silly "discount" schemes where only certain populations get the regular price (higher price - discount=old regular price) as the mechanism to get people to not complain about new prices and get used to new prices by having this "saviour" discount period

i could (dont have to) but could save alot of money by avoiding processed final product/ready meal style groceries. and instead cook from scratch and batch up meals in the freezer

back in my early bitcoin days where i was saving fiat to buy coin. i stopped what i would call "toilet flush" money wasting. you know the wsted money that just results in a bowel movement and toilet flush the next day
this wa no longer buying fast food but cooking it from scratch

in the UK 6piece drumstick/thigh KFC was £10 yet i can get 10 plain drumsticks/thighs for £4
KFC= £1.66 per drumstick/thigh
plain=£0.40p  per drumstick/thigh
seasoned flour/breadcrumb chicken=£0.50 per drumstick/thigh

300% discount.. not just 10%

actually the latest motivations is to change things without a strong consensus consent. changing things without nodes being ready for said changes.. which is more riskier and bad network security
the reason they do it is because doing it the proper hard way, means core would not get to throw random crap in easily. so they wanted a back door
and look what happens. the tx count is decreasing and the bloat of stupid memes abuse of space is increasing.. risking the utility of bitcoin remaining a payment network with this stupid backdoor policy


your argument is keep things low for 120 years. or leap to 50x this year to be one world currency?? (facepalm)
actual reality is neither
its progressive scaling over time. not 'huge leaps today or never' approach you assume



actually its more about when new power generators come online they are not built just for todays demands they are built for demands of the next 50 years
meaning demand:capacity in the initial years is 1:4 meaning current demand is paying 4x to cover yearly cost of re-reimbursing the build cost
however mining will move into a region and buy up allotments of the excess 3 ratio thus bring down the average cost per kwh due to more income for the power station. and over the decades as more native residential/industry demands want to use more of the capacity. miners would move their asic shipping containers to the next region offering spare excess capacity on their new build power generation


L2 does have a place. but the current prototypes and concepts being played around with have flaws and only fit small niches
ther will be development once the snake oil salesmen of current concepts realise they are chasing their own tail on flawed design. and development then start moving away from those concepts and come up with better ones.

but while that happens bitcoin needs to scale too.
if you think bitcoin should remain at a 2000 tx per block for 120 years. you are not thinking hard enough
and no... jumping to 50x in the next year is not the option either

de-cludging the currently allowed 4mb to actually allow a 4x scaling compared to the 1mb limit would bring tx count from an average of back-then 1600tx to a plausible 6400tx a block

then say for this posts demonstration sake, every 4 years is a 4x factor(reasonable scaling)
(not your silly 50x)

after all 20 years ago (5 scale periods)
we went from
harddrives of 4gb to hard drives of 4tb (1000x)
56kb internet to 56mb internet (1000x)

so basic math
   2023                    2024                      2028                 2032    
4mb(6400tx)   16mb(25,600tx)   64mb(102,400tx)  256mb(409,600tx)

   2036                  2040    
1gb(1638400)   4gb(6553600)

and as you can see thats the 1000x over 20 years we have seen tech scaling previously. thus able in future

remember we already have 1gb PER SECOND internet available now. thus will be the norm in 20 years
meaning a 4gb per 10 minutes (600 seconds) wont be a issue by then
4gb per 600 seconds is (6.72mbyte/sec =53.76mbit/sec - again achievable in 20 years, becasue its achievable now)

also if we factor in an assumption of whole population wanting to lock up value each month(like debit/credit cards) meaning 2 payments a month(lock and unlock to rebalance)

6553600 * 4032 /2 = allows  13,212,057,600 (locks+unlock combined) a month
by which would be the population base of that period

however sticking to 2000tx a block (for those 20 years) means only 4,032,000 rebalances of L2 a month.
meaning if there are 200m users(low ball number). they can only rebalance/move onchain. once every 50 months.. 2bill population =500month rebalance
no one can plan that far ahead their daily spending.
and thus if you want to promote that people should lock up value in a alternative system to bitcoin for 50 months. then you are trying to suggest that bitcoin should not be a payment system or a currency.

people would just end up using a different mainnet and not even bother with bitcoin in the situation you prescribe

and that is why bitcoin should scale onchain aswell we create NEW l2 that actually work and do as promised. instead of the current paradigm we are stuck in with silly people just saying "be patient"

first of all. quoting some rando person on twitter is not real source proof

also IMF said banning PRIVATE cryptos should be an option.
this means something totally different than just banning cryptos

private cryptos are the ICO pre-mined crap of centralised groups that trade their coin with privacy features in a CLOSED network
..bitcoin is a public crypto in an open network

they want to categorise different networks as different categories in regards to how to treat each network. and also the funds/value/data inside each network for how users use said funds/value/data differently depending on their purpose

they also said about public cryptos should not be given legal tender status

they also said (half a dozen other recommendations)

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2023/02/23/Elements-of-Effective-Policies-for-Crypto-Assets-530092?cid=pr-com-PPEA2023004

most of this. is the IMF not fighting crypto. but fighting the BIS which is another international settlements level organisation for central banks. which is trying to allow crypto's to be in banks reserves(though low percentile of their total collateral)
because the IMF is the old fiat organisation and the BIS is moving forward with the CBDC model for international finance

strange thing is. its you that makes most demands. you even want to control when where and how people post. you want to control their use of language. you say no one has to give consent to your ideals and you want core to do anything they like where users cannot refuse to be recipients of illegal content

core can do anything they like in their github. but when it comes to the (note: separate) activated ruleset of bitcoin network. core should not have trojan god mode control to do as they please
your main problem is that you do not see the difference between the bitcoin network. and cores github. you are the one that thinks core should be a central point of failure for the bitcoin network. and you enjoy that risk remaining

you if you lived 200 years ago. would have been a slave owner. all you care about is making money from the abuse of slaves. and you dont care what harm it causes, as long as you side with the "lawmakers"(core) you will continue to want to abuse others to get your way

and thats why you dont want core to lose their political position, and replaced with actual level playing vield of multiple brands of implementations that can all do their own proposals where users unite on a common interest via hard consensus

understand the word FULL
then understand when you turn off services you are less than full

its that simple.

oh and you do realise that the whole point of blockchains is about a distributed ledger, a decentralised network. a peer to peer network.. all meaning sharing and giving out data to others

its that simple

you are confusing yourself with a centralised closed system.. which is not what the bitcoin network is about.

firstly
bitcoin is not supposed to be a "one world currency for everyone to use one system" or "handle all the financial transactions in the world" or whatever slogan you use to pretend bitcoin cant do things.. because bitcoin if it was a "one world currency" that then becomes as corrupt as the current regime of fiat

so dont try to postulate that bitcoin either fails as a system or has to reach supreme one world currency status to be successful.. preaches like that are just narrow minded

secondly
you are using a script from a small narrow minded group.. funny part is you are outdated because that small minded group now think bitcoin can fit in every and any bloat/meme anyone wants to put into bitcoin, but they still dont want p2p payments to be the main/cheap use case option. yep they want those doing p2p payments to pay more in fee's than what bloaty memes do per byte

so be careful whos script you want to recite as those small minded folk can never get an idea right. they just dont want anyone to be oppositional to them

one moment they say they are conservative not wanting to allow more tx count. next they are opening the floodgates letting anything in and saying no one should stop them

their end goal is not to fix bitcoin to allow it to be a financial payment system, they will do anything to make bitcoin not be a financial payment system. they do not want tx scaling. they want the opposite. these narrow minded folds are the 'red coats', pretending to be the ones standing up with bitcoiners, but actually they are standing in readiness to get the whips out and back stab bitcoiners from within

you debunked yourself by admitting hard consensus did exist and has been softened


but hey if youdont want full nodes to be compliant to a ruleset at a 95%+ security level.. that just shows how you prefer less nodes % securing the network

which is more evidence of your lack of wanting bitcoin to be secure

as for your "franky is totalitarian" "franky is irrelevant" paradox.. pick one and stick with it

as for totalitarian ego
note who in this topic of censoring a user.. who is censoring who
note your own comments of you telling people to shut up. note how you love getting peoples posts deleted and how you want people that dont agree with your preferences should f**k off

as for "If you want people to only use blockchains for things you personally approve of, run a project with gatekeepers."

your the guy that only wants core to code bitcoin with features only they want to see.
you cannot see the difference between core vs bitcoin because you can only see core IS bitcoin. and anyone outside of core ideational as non bitcoiners

 you have been part of many REKT campaigns and anyone that wants to even propose something that is not part of the core roadmap you fight them.

its YOU that loves that core have gatekeepers and you think thats how all projects should be, becasue you are suggesting thats how i should also do it because its the only narrow vision method you can think of

nodes that prune are declared as fool nodes not full nodes
because the full blockchain data and verification system are for full nodes. emphasis on the full

other nodes that switch off services like archiving full data and ignoring certain tx formats by just saying they are valid(unchecked) thus not going to cause a block rejection if included, are the fool nodes

there is no point having this bypass system yet again, where a true full node has to keep the data so that it can seed it to leachers
where the "ignore" / bypass is just for individuals fool node to decide about putting their node into limp/fool mode of not being part of the network security(of decentralising the full data set and supplying full verified data to others) and instead used just for that persons own individual wallet features

..
in short. it still ends up true full nodes dont ignore op return and still maintain and contain it

bitcoin has currently under 85m crypto holders. (85m utxo) there are many hundreds of millions with custodial user agreements that "promise" to give their customers crypto should they request a withdrawal but remember #NotYourKeyNotYourCoin

as for the cbdc vs btc
fiat/CDBC will always be inflationary
when people transition from fiat to CDBC the incentive wont be that they will give good savings interest or give out $1000 for free to each new account. they will simply keep CBDC inflation at 2% while letting native fiat inflation go to stupid hyperinflation thus change the ratio from 1:1 swap to cbdc1:$1.1 ->c1:$2 and so on thus debasing and hyper inflating native fiat

this will work well for banks as their debt contracts for $32trillion become only 16trill CBDC units if the ratio is 1:2thus, which a side effect is if bread was say $2 in fiat in 2022 would be $4 in fiat but 2 CBDC units

thus appearing as offering a retail discount for goods/services if you use cbdc units

^
the guy that says he wants to resist censorship is the one that is trying every tactic possible to do censoring

doomad learn about consensus. its where rules are agreed to before changing. not where rules are made and people then have to accept blindly be be left out

YOUR MAIN MISSION is censorship
telling people to shut up and go away.

you slogan of if you dont like the new rules slid in without consent f**k off.. is censorship to the extreme

yep
imagine a house was $120k and you only had savings of 5% deposit($6k)
the year is 2012 and average btc is $6

choice is
A buy bitcoin then buy a house in 10 years.
B put the money down as deposit and pay mortgage payments for 20 years

A you buy 1000 coins. and 10 years later those 1000coins are worth $16m-$24million
the house sold in 2012. and then reappeared on the market again in 2022 for $200k
meaning you as a millionaire only have to put in ~1% of your wealth to buy it

or
b.
you put down that $6k as a deposit. and then need to work a couple decades to pay the bank more money.
however at the halfway position you review your standing..  after 10 years of say $750 monthly deposits. meaning you gave them so far on a  mortgage $96k.. of hard sweat labour. your still only halfway to the total of owning the house which will require about in total $186k to pay it off and finally be declared a true house owner in 2032.. but you have no savings left to maintain the house or modernise it or cover any other costs

.. yea id rather do it the bitcoin way
and yea. i have not neded to worry about my credit score. because i am self sustainably wealthy due to bitcoin. why would i need to take out a loan when deflationary currencies make saving up a better option than the 'take now pay later' fiat con

oh i seen it. i could say alot. but it speaks for itself

but if you want my opinion. here it is
you give them your bitcoin and they then have to use ALOT more of their locked value in alot of channels to allow users the ability to spend the msat funds over routes. funds in any which direction the user wants. problem is it meant bluewallet needed to have alot more balance than the users deposited to keep the channels liquidity available which has not shot them in the foot. so they had to stop that service

i mentioned it a few times before about liquidity issues and this is not the first company to sever its custodial service due to this problem. nor would it be the last

EG imagine 10 users deposited 0.001 each (0.01combined)
simple numbers for simple explainer

blue wallet has 20 channels to 20 super nodes(hubs)
but blue wallet doesnt know when and how much users will spend through any of those 20 supernodes as routes

so blue wallet would need to have equivalent of 0.2 total meaning 0.01 per supernode channel just in case all users wanted to use the same pathway (route) at the same time

thus blue wallet had 0.01 in deposits but needed 0.2 to service those 0.01 deposits.. and eventually. yea math, economics, and common sense shows its not sustainable

if he thinks economic VALUE is at the peak of a temporary 1 hour event of an ATH price.. he really needs to hand in his resignation stating he is not skilled enough in economics to be in the role. . fall on his sword and then go back to college to learn economics

heres a free lesson for him
high prices = premium. not value

"fix" = synonym to rig, corrupt

i say this only because the ethos of bitcoin2009-2016 has altered, where many of the old establishment have settled in and become bitcoiners and now want bitcoin to fit the old plan

though the fixes are very simple and could have been implemented already,
a rule that allows upto 4mb does not break if rule is changed to upto 80 bytes. becasue 80bytes is still under 4mb. thus no harm to existing node version. it just requires mining pools to consent by consensus to unite and agree to follow the new rule when they make their block templates and only fill them with the new lean rule

and it can be activated at a certain blockheight using the same precedence method they implemented in 2017

devs are avoiding making decisions because if they do so over the next couple years it shows that core "owns" bitcoin(admitting they are the centralised point of failure/decision makers of the masses) and can change code. (they want to play dumb and act like janitors not developers) . its funny how they take the glory in some places and then shy away from responsibility in others by saying it was user caused or miner caused.. (asics dont write code)
(average joe that just downloads software dont write code) bitcoin core devs write the code that allow things to happen.. which then allow others to use the bugs added, to be abused

they want to demote themselves down to janitor instead of developer status because they are getting sued right now to try to change code to the whims of a scammer. so they dont want to be seen as having the ability to change code easily, else they cant then use the defence to prevent altering the code if the scammer wins