merkle tree is IT science buzzword for how to organise stuff within a block
blockchain is more descriptive average joe catch phrase for the chaining of blocks

you know a chaining of blocks is more descriptive for, the blockchain

merkle trees are for INSIDE the block.. heres an easy example
EG 4 transactions/files
[file/tx 1] md5hash: d3a26d6da3d6aed3016c3a23a10f6111
[file/tx 2] md5hash: c3f79c45d3ca76b97216105be5c4ff1a
[file/tx 3] md5hash: 3897b59a865d28da0aedecfca8f847fe
[file/tx 4] md5hash: fe833b714102e6795cd301d9ac228e35

the merkle tree does this
d3a26d6da3d6aed3016c3a23a10f6111 + c3f79c45d3ca76b97216105be5c4ff1a = 4757980f55852853aa7d57f8a862a457
3897b59a865d28da0aedecfca8f847fe + fe833b714102e6795cd301d9ac228e35 =817458c1b547bc10e613c1e9525ca37b

817458c1b547bc10e613c1e9525ca37b + 4757980f55852853aa7d57f8a862a457 =
f51fb103ec49e2325a5dd476e7821786

where f51fb103ec49e2325a5dd476e7821786 is the merkle tree organisation of blockdata of block1

you then add the ID of previous block (chaining the blocks)
where its:
merkle1+blockID0=blockID1    merkle2+blockID1=blockID2     merkle3+blockID2=blockID3

a merkle tree is like (inside a block)

  X
 /  \
/\   /\
a blockchain is just (more so)
    /X
  /X
/X

---

blockchains is about the data security/integrity. its not about backup. being able to check a hash of data, can see data variations because a hash wont match a new hash.

EG you dont have to copy 2 files and run a word-for-word comparison, looking for differences.
you just hash 2 files and check the hashes match
local user hash his file, remote user hashs their file. they only exchange the hash. they only check the hash


this part is true. people can distribute blockchains of file hashes without having to send all the files.
EG if i had a file hash blockchain on a usb drive (small file) i can then compare it to the actual files hashes days later on my PC and see if they match
first would be to check the top hash(rpresenting all files. matches the all files hash of my PC and instantly know if any changes have been made. and if so, then compare the file hashes between USB and desktop to see which file has been changed. all without having to open each file and read all the word document for edits or viewing all pixels of a photo


if there is no file security or data integrity, a airport in dubai can change its record and be different to an airport version in NY. blockchain adds the security to lock data to a hash and so comparing hashs is easier then asking for whole files just to compare


i know you dont like blockchains. but guess what extra security is added ontop of existing database, blockchain. so that you can see the hash of the database to check against a hash of a remote database without having to send the actual databases just to check

yep just to check peers data. you dont ned to resend a whole database. you just need to send the latest hash
if 5/5 locations have the same hash as you, then boom, you al have the same data
if your the odd one out of a 4/5 check, then your data is wrong.
this is all done without asking for 5 copies of complete database files


guess your missing the benefit of the hashs.


if new zealand can reach into its $$ pockets and pay the navy to ride a plane/boat to tonga.. then tonga gets supplies because of $$(today and tomorrow).

Lord F should be converting out or spending btc each day to do the same thing. and get support to tonga(now).
thats all im saying.

Lord F is on twitter pretty much every hour giving thanks for donations and tweeting about NFT and AI. but as of yet he has not organised a supply trip to tonga financed by crypto. and he cant send crypto to tonga.. because they have no internet
thats all im saying

i know you want to say that blockchains are dead/defunct tech..
but in the early 2000's cypherpunks said channels were flawed, and they seen the beauty of blockchains for its security benefits of preventing cheating

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

ok so here is a good example of using blockchains, where its 1 user, and its not transfering value, but has a purpose/function

imagine your desktop.
you have files in folders and you want an easy way to check if someone edited a file on your desktop with out you manually reading opening and reading every word document or checking every image

first get a hash of the file, and do all the same for all files of folder A
put all hashes into a block, then hash the block of hashes.
you now have a hash for folder A

do the same for files in folder B
but before hashing folder B add the folder A hash to the file hashes of folder B
then hash the block of hashes

repeat for all folders
you now have a blockchain


what you end up with when done is a single hash that represents all files. note it down
days later, hash the desktop files again and see if the final hash matches your noted down hash

software can automate this so the only human action is to see the current hash, to compare to noted down hash
and in 0.1 seconds your human eye can see if anything is different. just from comparing final hashes.

you dont need to 'clone' your drive to compare (lots of storage space needed)

you can also store the blockchain of file hashes on memory stick(hashes of a few bytes can represent an index to gb of data). so if there is a change of final hash, you can then compare and find the individual file hashes to locate which file was edited, without having to open each file one by one.. without needing to clone a drive just to compare

so thats an example of blockchain without needing decentralisation, without asic mining

one recent prime example of a bad and severely oversold advert of crypto
the 'donations to tonga relief'

the organiser tweeted
https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FLordFusitua%2Fstatus%2F1483578990313209856&widget=Tweet

a. organiser is in new zealand
b. tonga has no internet
c. the first actual relief into tonga was paid in $$

i am a bitcoiner. and i donate to causes when i do my research. but this is overselling it.
tonga wont have internet for 2 weeks, meaning no btc in tonga

an ex-member of parliament...(translate: resigned congressman) not the tonga prime minister(translate president)
the ex-member of parliament did announce a donation address.
the ex-member of parliament did is currently in new zealand not toga

the twitter account is verified as belonging to the true the ex-member of parliament.

but that is all that has been evaluated.
the official tonga government has not announced their own tonga government address.
and tonga right now wont have any internet for a couple weeks, so they cant.

..
i personally would like to see the ex-member of parliament, stop just thanking people for donations. stop making tweets about AI and visiting NFT projects after the disaster, and instead make tweets showing him organising some physical actions to help tonga right now.

..
to note. the first relief package tonga is getting is in the form of:
a supply plane(should arrive on wednesday)
2 navel ships (should arrive on thursday)
all of which are are paid from NZ government relief package in $$.. not paid using ex-tonga mp's donation funds..

rath's narrative was that LN payments were done not by messages of Msat data but by actually editing outputs in a blockchain format transaction template and signing them. and then sending thoses signed transactions to the peeres to sign and complete the payment.

..
his more recent and changed view now atleast admits there are messages. and those messages have things in them but he still misses some things


in (2) he thinks that alice constructs a path just from network gossip. and tries the cheapest route to bob,
and then (3) signs a commitment to bob..

but here is the thing.
again using the example (its only a 1 hop instead of 3 hop to avoid lengthy example)
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#routing-example

alice wants to pay Carol 499999 based on carols details

but if alice paid bob to pay carol. bob would not get a fee. and also bob has his own defauly CLTV of 9 meaning carols cant begin because bobs has the 9

so instead alice has to request some update messages where by bob and carol talk. and alice gets an update of
as you can see the fee and calculated amount_msat and the cltv have changed based on the numbers that need to change to fulfill the route..
this is only done via alice talking to bob talking to carol and carol talking back to bob who talks back to alice.

this is not all just found at the network map on initial opening of an app.

it is only then that alice knows it will cost her 5010198msat to pay carol 4999999
by which alice can try to see the amount of other routes.. and then choose the route to actually take.

and then on taking the actual route then comit to the channel of that route direction

again for emphasis. because network map does not hold all info. such as CLTV amount_msat of active available balance, nor any other personal parameters like adding a bit of shade to each CLTV. making each one unique.
you cant just create a route in A using just A network map and just commit to bob. for an amount A guessed based solely on the network map

there are reasons why onion messages are a thing. and its not to transmit signed commitments..

seems rath_ has now managed to get n0nce mixed up.
one more time for clarity

LN is not a network of relaying signed transactions like the bitcoin network
it is instead where peers relay messages of little pieces of information that nodes gather up. to eventually put info into a blockchain format transaction template LOCALLY. and then sign their copy.
if all goes perfectly the other per should have also gathered its info similarly to build its own blockchain format transaction template LOCALLY. for it to sign. and then they both swap signatures.
once verified the signatures respond to their local builds it shows they both successfully commited.

again (to save me having to make another post to say the same thing. ill say it again here)
its not like tx bitcoin relay of signed transactions in full tx data in a blockchain acceptable format.
its instead lots of different messages relayed, in msat value..(and other info) that is then locally built and converted into a blockchain acceptable format locally. and locally signed and then just sending the signature to peer as a message. which should match both sides build to verify they both comply to the same terms.

once rath and others realise LN does not relay blockchain formatted transactions as payment, but instead lots of small different messages of things measured in msat. he will realise the differences between LN and bitcoin

and multiple times i have been saying you cant update a HTLC until you know the amounts, and details to put into a HTLC
alice is not psychic.

i know you want to play the whole 'everyone is seen online, there is no privacy, all the data is found when people start their node/app.. because gossip network map'
but this is not the case.

you say that the transparent network map is on by default and requires an opt out to become private. but its actually the opposite. its an opt-in process of being private first and deciding to go public
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#the-announcement_signatures-message

in short, nodes dont announce, and can reject requests and not announce, unless they choose to go public.
nodes are not forced to announce and then choose to go private

even while private they can still be routes to only the channels they want to accept

EG if i was C in ABCDE
i can keep my BC side private. thus A wont know about me or my channels with CD through network map. because i wont send an announcement to B of my D channels

but set my CD as public and so E can see me on the network map. because i am announcing to D my channels
E could use network gossip to build a route to A
but if A wanted to build a route to E. A would need to do channel requests to B to see that B is actually connected to C.. (and then i can choose(opt-in) to temporarily tell A about D (SEPARATE from the network map)

this if you learned it could actually become a positive privacy feature.. allowing payments to be made without having to be public.
but as always you want to deny it happens because it doesnt fit your narrative.('everything done in htlc')

.. which is starting to seem like your not actually interested in promoting LN for its positive features for the niche service it offers. but just want to cause debate and misinformation to fit a narrative where you thought that everything was done via commitment changes and only done by commitment changes(facepalm)

so please. try to learn about the messages. the HUNDREDS of different messages that happen before a HTLC is even changed.
because you cant change a HTLC unless you first know the data to put into the change.

here i will give an example.. of when actually routing (not rath_s psychic make a route without talking to peers on route)
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md#routing-example

as you can see they need to receive and see and then change the CLTV. aswell as update channel with some other details at the route stage(fees total, amountsat, cltvexpory ). where the can also reject such request.. before they can even make a HTLC to input the data(if they accept)
update_add_htlc is node a inside your node trigger to just add a htlc. its actually a message from a peer of data


ill emphasise this. and make it bold and colourful. maybe then take some time and think about these words:
you cannot change a HTLC unless you know the data that needs to be put in it, to change change it

so now are you ready to look at all the messages (not just the limited ones you want) that all involve how to get the data

well taxes were not increased to then buy these kits. they used 'money creation(bond creation, swapped for new money)' to get 'free money' to buy the kits.
but everything comes with a price eventually. because taxes will rise to pay back the 'bond'(loan)  that was used to get the 'free' stuff

its like people say having a child is 'free', but after the birth. diapers, feed, clothing, and education has a price

nature is free (breathing air, seeing, feeling the sun).. but civilisation always comes with a cost.

..
as for using the tests to get access to a plane journey or get back to work, is a false utility of tests
by simply not swabbing their mouth/nose. they can show a test that appears negative. even when the person is still positive.
by just showing their employer a negative test they can go back to work. even when actually physically positive

self testing at home(no witness to the swabbing part) is where the utility of the test fails its purpose. it should actually be used by employers watching their employees perform the test.

EG school testin. should be done by teachers witnessing students to see they dont have it to allow them to go back to class.. rather then self testing at home where the parents want the irritating kid to go back to school to give the parents a break

in the UK some employers wont pay unvaccinated people enhanced(salary matching) sick-pay if they get sick. and instead only pay the legal minimum. as a method to incentivise people into getting vaccinated.

but the vaccine-ignorant/refusers, will ofcourse also be the ones wanting to spread the virus, and so they will happily use a covid test(without mouth/nose swabbing) so they can get back to work within 5 days instead of 14 days. thus being positive but claiming negative, thus spread the virus.. due to their own stupid philosophy/ignorance of health and safety

evolution is slow and unnoticable for those going through it.. but thousands of years later, history can look back and see the differences and changes.


what we will see is over decades and centuries. the grammar, pronoun groups will develop new words for people. EG it might be 'millenials'(joke example) as the replacement of 'humans' for people after the year 2000

and in thousands of years we will be describing the evolution of
Neanderthals (-xmilion to -200,000BC)-Homo neanderthalensis
humans(-200,000BC to 2000AD)-Homo sapians
millennials (200AD+)-Homo entitledlaziness

we all are changing all the time. just very minimally with each generation.
EG thousands of years ago, there were distinct tribes/races.. but now we are merging into being blended where everyone has a mix in them.

in the future it would be a single 'race' of mixed colour.. i just hope the civility of the future evolved people wont be acting like todays millennial generation..

right now, tonga needs physical support, via boats with supplies.
tonga wont get any bitcoin for weeks. especially with the ex-MP being in New Zealand, not tonga

i hope the ex-MP cashes out daily and pays to rent some boats with supplies onboard to get from NZ to tonga to actually help.

what i have seen though is the ex-MP has been online to retweet donations with thanks. to also then tweet that he enjoys AI, blockchains.. and to also tweet that after the tsunami he was visiting a NFT project..
(weird priorities to have right now)

but it would have been great to see him ask for any NZ or other nearer island boatsman, if they can volunteer their time and boat fuel to get to tonga and actually help

well, in this forum. there are many just posting with "$100k by" and "how do we get more people to buy".. these people are the ones with a exit plan to go back to fiat. these are not what i define as true bitcoiners. they are fiat enrichment supporters, just temporarily using bitcoin to enriich their fiat life.

however there are alot of people discussing technical aspects and features of bitcoin. wanting payment services that allow normal shopping to be bitcoin accepted, so that they can buy pizza with bitcoin instead of converting back to fiat to buy food, also those wanting bitcoin to scale to allow more transactions, and such to have cheaper sat fee's so they can use bitcoin.

its easy to spot the fiat enrichment group, because they only post about price. and their desires for a high future price.

its easy to spot true bitcoiners because they discuss bitcoin features and wanting to use bitcoin for normal life stuff

segwit(141,144) didnt activate on august 1st. the mandatory threats did (148/91)

in normal consensus, incompatible nodes only fork off when they are receiving a new format they do not understand (block containing a new merkle tree for instance).
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#specification

what you learn is the 'backward compatible' is not that a segwit blocktemplate is the same as a normal legacy block. its that segwit upgraded nodes understand a segwit formatted block, and then strip it down and rebuild the blocktemplate without the segwit parts so that its formatted like a legacy block, for non-upgraded nodes.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki#serialization
whereby the trick of the 'anyonecanspend' rule is to just not evaluate or look for a signature(witness) of such transaction (because they got stripped out anyways), but treat as accepted even without a signature being validated, verified or stored by old nodes
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#backward-compatibility

this meant that those collating/creating/propagating segwit blocks would not cause a fork after the 24th(141/144). but just cause non upgraded nodes to not be full validation full archive nodes. by being given stripped(serialised) version

which has been a debate about the security hole of then the non-upgrading nodes now no longer treated as full validation and archival nodes, because they are missing crucial data and they are not truly validating all transactions.

.. but before segwit even activated, before segwit nodes and pools even done anything with segwit block templates(141/144). there was a split(148/91). this was not due to normal consensus events of old nodes not understanding a new block structure(141/144) and rejecting(because segwit wasnt activated to even allow making new blocktemplates).. but instead the split was due to the 148/91 stuff of mandatory rejection from the side of those wanting segwit to activate by rejecting old blocks that didnt flag for 148/91, BEFORE segwit activated
..
pools still making blocks without the flag (on august 1st only 1-2%) were getting their blocks rejected, but old nodes still accepted them. causing the split 59 blocks after the 148/91 activation/lockin. because it took hours for nonflag-poolers to get a block confirm, now different nodes were seeing two chains of blockheights containing differing blocks.
UASF(148) nodes with their peers who didnt propagate unflagged blocks. (the NYA economic majority)->users
nodes with their peers who received old blocks(non flaggers)->users.

the bitcoin network followed the chain of the exchanges, payment gateways and prominent pools (NYA economic nodes), because the users and pools feared not getting their transactions seen by exchanges, meaning they couldnt spend their value.

those who were on segwit flagging chain, during the grace period before segwit activated, didnt like the split, didnt like the orphan drama and the cross transmissibility of nodes. so they asked those accepting the old blocks to change stuff to become a independent altcoin.
(as highlighted in previous posts, which showed doomad knew about this)
..
segwit did not actually make any segwit blocktempates with the witness until after august 24th. meaning in a true consensus unupgraded nodes in a true new consensus (without backward compatibility strippping trick) would have forked on the 24th because they cant full validate and archive segwit blocktemplates.

i think maybe this is why after 2017 Doomad got told segwit didnt fork(aug 24th). which he misinterpreted or lead to his contradictions by saying in later years 'it didnt happen'..
but totally ignoring the mandatory fork(using flags, not blocktemplates) before segwit activation(aug 1st), which caused the later activation(aug 24th), by simply rejecting block flags not flagging for a segwit activation. to get a segwit flag of over 95% before august 2nd

again by using a few tricks. bips148/91 forced the condition to start 141's 3 week 'grace period' to get segwit activated.

---

in summary and answering doomads consensus questions
yea the NYA agreement team (UASF) did run their software even though they were a minority. and no one could stop them (you admit they were a minority of general nodes) but because they were also the economic majority(nodes used by payment services and some pools), other pools listened and followed their lead under threat of not having their transactions seen by the economic majority nodes(payment/exchange services).

this is why average user nodes(not exchanges/ merchant tools) had no vote, and were pandered just flagged blocks or thrown off the network for accepting unflagged blocks(orphan drama of 2 chains)..  depending on what blocks got propagated to them via whatever peer they were linked to.

which all occured because of a mandatory action before segwit even made its first segwit block template including segwit transactions

seems some dont like blockchains.

yes there are many ICO's pretending to do projects of utopia but have no intention to actually run, where their aims are just greed.

but blockchains do have a purpose

saying they dont is like saying that cloud storage is not needed because single host FTP worked fine for years.
but here is the thing. even the single hosted FTP owners disliked when their servers crashed and all customer data was inaccessible, so even they like distributed data.

security businesses with a single database employee log-in database, want not only distributed backups, but also a way to check the database isnt edited at any of the remote sites. and ensure that no employee can edit the database without being noticed.

even international airport security want access to world wide data but also ensure everyone has the same copy where one location cant just edit their copy and be unnoticed.

there are many real cases where blockchains offer a simple extra layer of security to standard database models. and it does not require the expense of millions of 'asics'. blockchains are not limited to being asic mined. the point of a blockchain is to lock a block of data. and chain it to the previous block of data. so that any edits can be seen/checked quickly and the latest 'hash' can be compared to other sources to check everyone has same copy.

blockchains dont even need to be from genesis to eternity. there are ways that the block hash is based on just 50 blocks in length where the oldest block drops when the newest(50th) block is added. meaning a perpetual chain of only 50 blocks chained together.

as stated in previous posts ages ago..

at the moment the bottom value and premium is in the $30k-$70k range(mining cost most efficient to most expensive on planet)

no one on the planet needs/wants to pay more than $70k because even hobby miners in japan/germany(most expensive electric on earth) can mine bitcoin cheaper than $70k

once the value window (look at most expensive electric and calculate mining cost based on hashrate) exceeds $100k then people are more willing to buy for $100k.. but that is not yet.

i know memory escapes you. but if your unsure about the bips. go read them.

your rhetoric for years was that there was no mandatory split. and that the only time there would be a split is if people run incompatible software when segwit activates and starts making segwit template format blocks. (after aug24th)
yet the bips 148 and 91, and BCH split prove that a fork happened on august 1st (the dates of the bips) not based on segwit activation data and segwit actually being used.

i know you now want to play games pretending you mis understood 'threshold, vs 'activation' to pretend, in previous yours you meant that segwit started making different block formats on august 1st. but you are just playing bad grammar games trying to claw yourself out of the hole you dug yourself

there was no segwit(141) code or detail in bips to start making blocks of segwit template format, or include segwit transactions on august 1st..
the split was due to 148/91... not 141

by now everyone should know(including Doomad) that 148 and 91 were used and both involve mandatory rejecting non-segwit flagging blocks before segwit even activated(141) on 24th august 2017.

so lets recall some messages from a certain person who spent years denying it ever happened, even contradicting himself

first lets see him admitting it was used.. right when it happened.

as you can see. on august 1st 2017 he was happy to admit 148 led to 91 which would in 3 weeks lead to 141(segwit)
and admits the split occured on the day everyone said it would due to the actions of the 141 91 stuff

heck there are other posts where he also admits that due to the split BCH had to change its magic to actually be an altcoin rather that a reject block orphaner fighting against bitcoin. heck he even mentions how gmaxwell had to plead to BCH to add some changes, heres one: (note the date, ill explain later)

the reason why they had to change the EDA, was because it wasnt its own altcoin, just borrowing blockdata. it was a split based on the 148/91 and so the split of bch begun at the same difficulty as bitcoin
(a true altcoin just copying blockdata but wanting to go-it alone without the mandatory cause, would start at a near 0 difficulty(EDA))

and then.. here he is denying things happened. (as you can tell in 2017- april 2019 date shows how he knows it happened in 2017 . and admits it in 2019.. 2 months later, below = contradicting himself)
here he is saying that no one used those bips. and the bips were not mandatory (facepalm+laugh to his own contradiction)
and for years after he was saying
"it never happened", "there is no mandatory", "bips didnt activate until after 24th aug 2017", "there was no split".. just so he can be a social drama queen showing off loyalty to some core devs

there are many many more posts where he says there was no split (although the world can see BCH exists),

 yea i removed some insults from his post but they were just his usual boring ramblings. but as you can tell he is the one thats being uncivilised and contradictory. which then prompts me after years, to bite back.
again i dont feel sympathy for him playing the victim card now, because he was the instigator by doing his contradiction games just to play debater and cause reason for him to act uncivilised as part of his game.

but hey. ill give it a month and he will again forget about 148/91 before 141 and instead go back to insisting 141 activated without any mandatory bips. just so he can cause social drama for his new friends to hug him.

(not his first time with that tactic(forgetting he got debunked when he pretends nothing happened, forgetting his own admissions of what did happen))

yea all boring social drama.

his latest point of wanting to ask about devs can write any code. is to narrate that no one should/can stop core.
(something he is passionate about not wanting people to stop core from being the authority)
he then tangents to pretend that core cant mandate (due to lapse in his memory of events(the contradiction)).
but when circling back to the facts and not his narrative.
they did mandate and they got segwit activated without miners or users needing to upgrade software to actually use segwit.
because all they had to do was edit a couple bits in a block to signal something without needing to upgrade software.. "due to backward compatibility". pools were threatened to change bits because the 'limited' user that did use 148UASF were the main NYA agreement group that included some pools, merchant tools, payment services and exchanges. meaning they were the economic majority nodes of importance. .. which is why the threat worked. and on august 1st the rejected blocks caused the fork resulting in BCH, which core devs demanded they either stop, or change their 'magic' to not disrupt bitcoin

so any time you see a consensus upgrade described as "backward compatible", it means that it does not require majority to upgrade the software.

because bip148, 91, 141 did not need general users to upgrade software to cause activations of segwit. it worked by the threats of the economic nodes(exchanges/payment gateways)

at the technical level. in raw data of blockchain and transactions... there is no BTC.
everything is measured in sats.

there will be 2,099,99,999,769,000 shareable units that people can have
EG, saying there is only 190,000 units of gold. makes gold seem scarce, but when you then reveal thats the measure is tonnes. which no one can afford a whole tonne, and everyone only buys grams, ounces. you start to realise there is actually
6,702,053,000 shareable units of ounces.. not 190,000 shareable units of tonnes

everyone in every house has some gold. its in devices its in jewellery its everywhere. its not actually scarce

its not actually about 'scarcity' its about absolute limit.(final supply limit)
after all many think there is only 250,000 tonnes (190k(60k yet to be mined)).. yet they now talk about asteroid mining beyond the 250,000tonne cap, gold becomes less 'strict' in its supply economics

supply limit. and scarcity are separate terms

i guess doomad never learned anything from 19th century economics of the gold/bank note scenario

heres a joke:
2 bitcoiners enter a bar. A has funding locked bitcoin and funding locked litecoin, B has only funding locked bitcoin..
.. 2 men leave a bar, A has 2x confirmed bitcoin, B has litecoin

in bitcoin thats called 'thunderdome: 2 may enter, one may leave'
in litecoin thats called '1 in 1 out'

oh and to pre-empt another social game.
even doomads favoured service 'thor' can create channels without needing both partners to fund(have coin) on both sides.
so doomad is aware its not a 1 in 1 out

and thats the punchline that makes me laugh. doomad knows, but pleads ignorant to set a narrative

---

and to rath_
seems to again forget, to edit/change a htlc in a commitment or update/edit/change/sign a commitment . they need to know what needs changing.
he forgets the messages that communicate the information.

he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics htlc right at the start.
he also thinks alice or bob or carol know erics is online just from network gossip
he also thinks alice or bob or carol know diana is online and liquid to forward just from network gossip

he thinks the deal is complete as soon as alice looks at network gossip and signs a commitment with bob

---

to blackhatcoiner below
i didnt avoid the consensus stuff, i even stated bips related to how devs changed its parameters. mandate(148/91) before sw active(141)

the stuff about anyone free to use any software is not about consensus. its about freedom to use any software.
whether its a lite wallet, spv, a altnet, wallet
consensus should only change when majority of nodes have an agreed framework to obide by.
consensus should not change by pre block rejecting before the new feature activates

EG
deciding to lite wallet  is a freedom but has nothing to do with consensus
your free to use this forums software or just write aimlessly on microsoft word.. nothing to do with consensus

all im saying is tonga has no internet. so anyone actually in tonga wont get any bitcoin for 2 weeks.
im guessing the ex-member of parliament is not actually in tonga, if he is able to tweet and get crypto.

if the scenario was say
US. new orleans had a tsunami, and there was no road access for 2 weeks. and an ex-congressman of N'O' was accepting donations of bottled water.. i too would respond, "but no one can get bottled water into N'O' for two weeks, and it appears the ex-congressman is no where near N'O'"

..
its the little details that amuse me.
while pleading for donations. the ex-member of parliament then goes on a new business plan advert about the country spending masses of money on power stations for crypto industry..
..usually at a time of disaster the first topic to discuss is how to get power, water, utilities and shelters fixed.
.. usually if someone has a communication method in and out of a disaster zone, they would report more about the disaster

im not saying the donations are a lie.
its just a bit of an oddity/amusement to the whole narrative going along side the donation plea.

he seems to have the ability to retweet all the donation stuff and crypto projects of the future. but seems a little lacking on tweeting any important messages of whats actually happening in tonga

in response to darkvortex's social drama post of no substance
(yawn)
not beaten
but just seeing your losing your game, where its the same game, just different day. so its boring, so i have better things to do then entertain you lot with your games

and so i realised more and more with each day that life is too short to care about cheaters playing games, acting cultish.
i have no sympathy for those types of people.

it has been a good laugh watching a group of people trying to play victim as if they want or pretend to deserve respect and sympathy..even after they themselves have been the instigators of their own injured emotions.

but anyways, its starting to sound a bit cultish now. wanting to convert people over to their cause and insulting anyone that does not join their altnet. arguing with anyone that shows the flaws of their utopian religious place of worship.

sorry but im not interesting in joining the cult. its not the promised land, its not the utopia you lot present it as.
but you did give it a nice try pretending bitcoin is at it end of days as a currency. you gave it a good try, trying to make it appear bitcoin is useless for daily use. and you gave it a good try pretending that LN is the next blissful life of promise, beyond bitcoins death.
your group is not the first that tried to insinuate that bitcoin cant cope, survive, grow. your not the first to try cutting the legs off bitcoin to stop it moving forward. so, goodluck with whatever new hobby you try next. just dont try to waste 5 years trying to turn your hobby into a cult for your own personal enrichments of getting people to join your commune

nice try, but you failed.

have fun in your group. but try to play with each other next time instead of against others that you see as the opposition

there is only one thing you have all got right, i dont need friends or loyalty to back up my opinions. i just have to quote the data. even if you dont want to read it.. others can, others do

many people newbies and the young try to conceptualise the 'supply demand' of high school economics the over simplify the market supply of price and value, to suggest bitcoin has no value and is just 100% speculative..

so ill have a stab at explaining the market 'supply/demand' stuff

market price
bitcoins market price is not based on the coins mined(supply) this minute because they wont hit the market today.
nor based on the 19million in circulation.

bitcoins market price is based on the coins being put on market order lines inside exchanges.

if its was 'supply' 'demand' of circulation.. then 2012 supply was only ~11mill coins. vs todays 19mill means there is more supply now. yet prices are higher

however as i said its not based on the coins in general circulation.
in the same comparison. coins in exchanges had order lines of 1-1000btc.  now those order lines are 0.001- 1
which is where the market order 'supply' has more effect on the price.

why,? easy explanation is because its those actual coins being exchanged for a price that are setting the price. hoarded coins never on the market dont affect the price. because they are not on the market to change the price.
..
market value
even if there is 190,000 tonnes of gold. and a possible say 50,000 more yet to be mined on earth, does not matter.
what does matter is the smaller allotment held by gold markets doing the actual price alterations.

these price alterations are done by their owners deciding the value which they want to sell at,
based not on high school simplistic but non informing "supply/demand" but on many factors, some of which explain supply and demand. but other factors are involved outside of supply and demand. such as the value that underlines the price.
..
some reasons why buyers pay a premium
do they find it useful, yes
is it hard to get it elsewhere,
is it convenient to get it on the market
is the market offering it at a rate easier,cheaper than other acquisition methods

some reasons why buyers refuse to pay a premium
do they find it useful, not so much
is it easier to get it elsewhere,
is it inconvenient to get it on the market
is the market offering it at a rate higher than other acquisition methods

for instance
in japan it costs about ~$70k to mine a bitcoin. so japanese are very very willing to buy bitcoin rather then mine
in USA/europe it costs about ~$40k to mine a bitcoin. so US/EU jump back and forth in their decision
in kazahkstan it costs about ~$30k to mine a bitcoin. so kazahk's prefer/willing to mine bitcoin rather then buy

why its not just silly 'supply demand' speculation, but is about value
the reason bitcoins has value of between $30k-$70k window is not silly 'supply/demand' high school economics
its because of the cost of acquisition of different area's from cheapest to most premium

the price decisions by each trader trading each second that affect the price. then changes the price within that window of value, and those whims of greed, hope of human decision. change depending on circumstance

in 2012. everyone could acquire bitcoin privately either mining or buying from a friend for under $100. so absolutely no one would pay a $60k premium for it back then.

but with mining cost increases and then the acquirers then buying above $100 setting the new low end cost window above $100. and the repeated change of acquirers costs as things are mined and traded at gradually rising prices. it now near impossible to get bitcoin for $20k from any private source. and so peoples value is now way above $20k minimum

its not about how many coins. its about the value even for 0.001 coin no longer being under $20 ($20k/1btc)
it doesnt matter if someone is offering 100btc or 0.01btc.

he values 100btc the same as 0.01btc  ($4.3m and $430 respectively). both being that of $43k/btc today.

no one ever things that because most orders today are done at 0.001 per order. that someone with 100btc must sell at the 2014 price rate where 100btc was the market order processed supply per order

its actually decided by the person selling who doesnt want to sell at a loss, so never going to sell for less than he acquired it

it doesnt matter if there is an order of 0.001coin or 1 coin or 100 coin
if someone was to trade
0.001coin for $43
1coin for $43,000
100coin for $4.3m

the supply is different but each of the will still trigger a market order and thus a price of $43,000 a coin.
its not like market orders are fixed to only 'fill' if 1 whole coin is sold. and it needs a buyer to pay a whole coins price to buy it.
even in low order sell amounts. buyers can also buy in small buy amounts

sellers with 100coin are not forced to sell all their coin. and they wouldnt. because they know it will hurt themselves selling down the orderline. they prefer to only sell 0.001 at a time to not affect the market.
it might take longer but they do this to avoid selling at a loss. and also to avoid affecting the price negatively for them

buyers wanting 100coin are not forced to buy all 100 coin. and they wouldnt. because they know it will hurt themselves buying up the orderline. they prefer to only buy 0.001 at a time to not affect the market.
it might take longer but they do this to avoid buying at an expense. and also to avoid affecting the price negatively for them

so whats important to know(summarised):
bitcoins value is not linked to supply/demand. its value is window bottom and top limits, based on different costs to get it, lowest to highest. for different regions for different reasons
bitcoins price moves within this window, based on the human emotion whims of different people in different places with different decisions for many reasons

..
i say all this because some people want to use highschool economics to start playing games that bitcoin has no value and that the price is only based on vapour speculation. rather than understanding the value window hidden around the price speculation