i did not mention bitcoin once in my scenario.... anyways. moving on

my point is even if a blockchain has just 1 person hashing with a 2014 360gh asic. just having a blockchain transaction is safer than having a unconfirmed privately exchanged smart contract.

if a malicious person wanted to edit the ledger. he cant just delete an email or wipe his computer. he would have to buy a 400gh asic to over power the other person. and then go back and edit the blockchain and then create enough blocks after the edit to overtake the other person.. thats alot more work than just deleting a non-blockchain smart contract

yes having a blockchain like bitcoin with 1.6million asics running at 110,000gh each is even stronger.. as it would need someone to buy 2millions asics of same/better hashpower each to even have a change of editing the blockchain

but..
even the cypherpunks in the 1990's-2008 knew that smart contracting alone (pre-blockchain) was not 'good money'. it was the invention of blockchains even at just CPU mining speeds that showed more security compared to privately traded smart contracts

when LN is being advertised as a solution to bitcoin, yet LN is not fit for purpose as a solution to bitcoin because LN cant cope if everyone was to use it. (yes liquidity bottlenecks/route fails happen ALOT on LN. even with small payment value requests) imagine the headache if larger payments bigger then micro-transactions became a daily thing. LN would bottleneck more often

when LN is being used as the reason not to scale bitcoin because they say LN is the thing people should use instead of bitcoin

when LN is used to scapegoat why bitcoin shouldnt scale by suggesting bitcoin cant cope with LN transaction numbers. even thou LN average user count and transactions per day are not that much (ignoring the payments done as route, rebalancing which are just needless transactions not needed to be done on the bitcoin network). yep if you actually count the payments where LN users are actually paying for a good or service. that volume of payment count is not going to saturate bitcoin.

bitcoin does not need 100mb blocks or 2gb blocks like the altnetters suggest as their melodrama excuse to not want to scale bitcoin

their desire to hinder bitcoin scaling just to advertise an altnet, its not actually helping evolve bitcoin. its purely ends up being an advert for an altnet

i dont mind people advertising niche services for niche use cases if they explain the risks and what makes it different to actual bitcoin network stuff.. my main gripe is the promises of bitcoin scaling but then saturate posts with adverts about features, other network stuff, that ends up not scaling and just some other thing to side step people out of using bitcoin daily and into something that doesnt work 100% guaranteed without risk/permission from another party.

if you want a simple list of my issues with LN and its supporters:
1. PR campaign advertising LN as bitcoin (pretending security/feature similarities)
1.a: brand tagging bitcoin into a different network to fake trust/loyalty/fanbase
1.b: brand tagging the trust of bitcoin to hide the risks of the other network
1.c: avoid clarifying the differences of LN payments vs funding/settlement commitments
1.d: avoid explaining the permission required payments/commitments vs the permissionless broadcast of just commitment
1.e: avoid temporality of LN payments vs the immutability of confirmed bitcoin transactions

i already said many times if they're honest. they could actually use the differences as positive spin for their niche use case

2. using LN as an excuse not to scale bitcoin
2.a: saying bitcoin doesn't need to scale now LN exists, as if LN could cope with routes for large value/all value(facepalm)
2.b: LN flaws means LN nodes need to perform more 'events'(payments) even when they are not personally buying things
2.c: pretending their high 'event' count is a sign of high utility of LN of people buying things
2.d: pretending the high events is a sign bitcoin couldn't cope with amount of events if those events were blockchain tx's
2.e: pretending LN solves bitcoin scaling, and is there for all users, all value, and 100% payment success
2.f: pretending bitcoin needs to scale to Visa by this month, but cant so LN can and LN will handle Visa amounts
2.g: pretending LN is dependant on bitcoin and thus bitcoin is dependant on LN

3. saying bitcoin is broke or trying to break bitcoin just so they can say 'LN is perfect'
3.a: saying miners(asics) cant handle 'big blocks' (although asics dont even touch tx data)
3.b: saying people use 1999 tech and cant store or relay bitcoin (sorry average internet is 59mbs not 0.5mbs)
3.c: saying people shouldnt initial block download, 'its to big and meaningless', use LN phone app with an exchange channel
3.d: saying pruning is safe, everyone should do it. blockchains aren't needed. blockchains aren't part of decentralisation
3.e: saying litewallets and pruned are full network feature nodes. lite/prune still support the network 100%(facepalm)

4. not wanting to evolve bitcoin as digital cash
4.a: wanting bitcoin fees to be high with lame excuses like pools need high fees
4.b: not wanting more tx's for less fee's (where 5k tx of $0.50 is better than 2k of $1) because lower fees = less LN niche
4.c: telling people what not to buy using bitcoin "dont buy coffee with bitcoin"
4.d: telling people bitcoin is not a digital cash for the unbanked (goes against the whitepaper)
4.e: telling people bitcoin is a 'rail' / reserve network for the elite whales that can afford to use it for batching custodial tx's

i am a whale, but i also see that bitcoin should be useful for the little guys

5. even the usability of LN is not childs play
5.a: needing to lock funds but have to predict how much you plan to spend days/weeks/months ahead
5.b: needing to plan chances of route success and split funds over different 'accounts'(channels) in preparation
5.c: needing to find a channel partner you know will be online when you are to sign permission for your payment
5.d: needing to know he has enough routes/channel possibilities to help ensure payment success
5.e: needing to ensure he is not being used by others too much so that liquidity remains for you to route via him

i could go on but thats just the thoughts at the top of my head

a commodity is a raw material used in the production of a secondary product

gold-> jewellery and circuits
beef-> burgers and mincemeat
wheat-> bread and cereal
oil-> fuel and plastics

gold has 2 markets. the commodity (produce demand) and asset market(investment/store of wealth)

bitcoin more aligns to an asset market. not a commodity market

i have a proposal too

anyone advertising LN as bitcoin. as bitcoinL2 as bitcoin2.0. as bitcoin scaling. as anything pretending to be the bitcoin network. should think deeply about their advertising stance of confusing people. and then realise the N of LN means its not the same network as bitcoin, and just avoid advertising it as being part of the bitcoin network.

bitcoin-core. the reference client (which altnet groupies also love describing as the sole place feature upgrades should be allowed via) does not have code that support LN millisats nor LNs peer connection gossip protocols. nor the invoice format

and so because its not part of the reference client of the bitcoin network protocol, its not part of the bitcoin network

EG its the same as saying a exchange is not "bitcoin" but a niche service
if people cannot comprehend the simple task of separating the wording of the function of an exchange from the wording of the function of the bitcoin network. then they need to resist trying to say an exchange is bitcoin

thats why consensus is not 100% but instead majority..
i never said true consensus needs 100% agreement. i said majority.
seems doomad and now blackhatcoiner have been propagandising the misinformation of how consensus 2009-16 worked, as well as pretending mandatory activation was still the same consensus. but then contradicting to say the new consensus is different

i just said majority of true desire, is the consensus of how things get activated..
.. not threats of rejection if not flagging (new mandatory version of activation)

funny part is segwit 2016 (bip9+141) didnt reach that 'majority' all the way through to july 2017

its why they needed to brutalise consensus by changing things from consensus to 'mandatory activation'
oh and before we run back down the ignorance of blackhatcoiner and doomad's propaganda scripts, which is to say bip9+141 was not replaced by bip91+148.. i can show you quotes from theymos and pieter wuille  that say they were replaced and used. and the flags are shown in the immutable blocks.

and the bips themselves say they are mandatory activations by using block rejection to get their thresholds met

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki

and if they want to continue arguing it wasnt. they can take that argument to them

hmm

ok i just wrote a transaction paying Dave some coin..
........... .............. ...........
... oh dave you didnt get it.? can you prove you didnt get it? because my records say you did.
oh wait. i didnt use a blockchain coin.. oh well seems you prefer to not use blockchains so,  guess we are settled.

see the issues with this scenario?

if someone could 51% a blockchain then that network is indeed weak. but to do a 51% attack is another thing someone has to do to remove proof from a thing that shows proof.
where as without a blockchain entirely. its much easier to remove proof of something happening. or say something happened without proof, or even just claim someone elses proof is not the most valid, true proof, but something old and now obsolete.
all done without any cost or effort

before 2009. many 'cypherpunks ' already invented 'smart contracts' .. smart contracts between private individuals is not new tech. its older tech, older than blockchains.

blockchains was an invention that made smart contracts immutable and set in stone to then be useful as an account of value registry. where that registry has no central point of failure. blockchains provides that registry

without blockchains it devolves to old tech which can be manipulated.
the flaws and security risks of 'crypto/smart contracts' without blockchains, has been very well known from the 1990's-2008

its not a 'decline' in the sense of the higher price being a settled constant value.

its in a sense of u.s fuel prices reach excessive $1.50 a litre price in X month and return to lower prices, when the markets calm down

the $45k-$70k is what is known as speculative bubble hype, temporary inflated price

the underlying value which people resist selling below is the underlying value.
this underlying value is not $0 nor $20k, its above that. in the $30k-$40k range

between the $40k-$70k is the volatile area of emotional speculation and panic and hope

slowly over time this $30k-$40k underlying value will rise. and bring comfort and resistance to not go down again.. but that time is not now. underlying value is not $50k range.

which has wall street, which reach is international.
if you look at his responsibilities

this means if he does favour crypto. he wont be trying to:
get NY mining pools arrested/shut down.(he owns the cops and courts)
get NY bitcoin exchanges and bitcoin ATMs to stop operating (he owns the courts)
get landlords to end leases on bitcoin businesses (he administers public property and courts)

if he was against crypto. then he can do the opposite. stop bitcoins businesses from operating

its like this
though some federal law might be against immigration. NY is pro-immigration and NY does not operate any federal immigration enforcement.

and so if NY is pro crypto. they too should not do any crypto enforcement

the issue with social trends is that its social trends

imagine it in steps.
imagine the social trend mindset is that a price goes up when there is positive news.

now, imagine the next layer.
when the price goes up people then sell for profit.

now the next layer.
the new social trend is everyone expects the price to go up when there is positive news. so people then deposit their coins ready to sell at profit. meaning the result of the social trend of positive news now results in a price dropping.

..
now the loop.
people then expect the price to drop on positive news because the social trend is everyone preps to sell on good news

this makes people go back to waiting to buy coin on good news.

..
and so the loop returns.

meaning when there is positive news. one group is on a buy cycle and another group is on a sell cycle.
eventually the price doesnt move as they both cancel each other out.

social trends dont last long and their perceived results change once everyone tries to take advantage of the trend. where the taking advantage becomes the new trend.

by the time you have worked out what the trend response might be.. its too late. your last in line to use it and its already moved in opposite direction.

in short..
if you are reacting to public knowledge.. the public knowledge has already reacted

sorry but your pretty much copying the mindset of doomad(un-original)

the "franky you want everything your way" rhetoric
im not the one doing mandatory forks, banning users, and trying to get users over to altnets
heck i(and thousands of others) dont even want patents, NFT, land registry and everything on bitcoin..
bitcoin was invented for digital cash for the unbanked.. thousands of people(including me) just think bitcoin should continue to be used for its purpose. not to be condemned as not-fit-for-purpose just so some other group can sell their other network as what people should use... because that offramping/exodus game is for greed and selfish profit

i get it your are not profiting from bitcoin, your jealous of those that do. and so you want to make your profit bank managing peoples payments on another network(routing). i get it its understandable. its human. everyone doesnt want to be poor, everyone wants income to live a lifestyle. no reason to deny your underlying desire for wanting people to use your favoured altnet.

yet,
im not the one saying bitcoin shouldn't be used for the very thing that it was invented for "digital cash" : white paper
im not the one trying to convince others that altnets should replace bitcoins use.
heck i have even said if you actually explained why altnets differ from bitcoin, then you might have a better PR campaign for your niche usecase.

also i know doomad and now you seem you have targetted me, with the same hitlist and mission plan and scripts, as if im enemy-number-one.. but your rifle scope has limited vision when only looking at one target, you forget that there are thousands of people that want bitcoin scaling.
heck you have injected yourself in many topics of such to sell your altcoin. so deep down you know others do want to talk about bitcoin scaling.. no point denying it. you know they exist

you think your limited scope of me must be due to me being a ego wanting to be the sole person you see.. yet i wasnt the one handing you the target. i am the one trying to explain there is more then me that exists. im not the big ego you have been told that i am.

typically yes, hitmen when on mission with one target only zone in on one person, as if only one person exists in their life that should be killed off. but there are other people. try to accept that. its a known fact that there is more then one person in the world.

you only think its just me vs the world because you are only pointing your scope at me and that has blinded you to the rest.
im not the big single ego.. your just the one with narrow vision.

again looking down a barrel of a scope limits your viewing area. especially when your chums have been the one that handed you the target list of one person, you have become narrow sighted to that one person.
it still does not mean there is only one person. even if your chums only have one target.

you may not like me. but atleast know im not the only one. even if you have a target list of one
...


NFT's are not a bitcoin thing.
as for blockchains. they are decentralised, and part of that decentralisation is that many users store the data. thus avoiding the central point of failure thing(yea i noted you trying to propagandise bitcoin as being centralised due to its blockchain(facepalm)).

the way laws work is by logging things. there are no laws unless they are wrote down and locked into something that everyone can access to read, understand and accept as the truth the majority can live by.
 
take patents/trademarks. if someone doesnt show they are the first and only inventor. then anyone can make silly claims on that property.. however, by logging who owns an asset is important for a asset owner that wants to own something.

EG if owning a house only relied on who can open the door even without the key. then any burglar can take ownership of a house.
however houses are locked to an owner by having a ledger that shows a registered ownership. with rules on how that ownership can change officially.

LN has keys, yes. but with no network consensus. two people with the keys can fight and argue over ownership. and true ownership only works with trust and amicable agreement to not be dishonest, not blackmail, not agree.  and involves punishments and watching what the other person might do 24/7 to try stopping them. which is less secure then registered community wide locks. that the majority can account and audit and agree as who deserves what.

blockchains have a deeper and bigger advantage over centralised databases, or amicable agreements of trust and promise. because there is no central point of failure in blockchains. and no trust/honesty, or two party promise involved.
yes a blockchain can be manipulated if the dev group is centralised. and i have mentioned that risk often and showed when it has been abused. thats called making the community risk aware.

---

bitcoin is not the ledger for home ownership, nor NFT... not everyones alibi for using bitcoin is to throw every asset into bitcoin, no one has ever said bitcoin is the land ownership registry, the nft registry, the patent registry. bitcoin is a finance/currency network for ONE asset (sats)

however if you are against networks being used for different assets. why then support a network like LN that supports many assets.
seems a little backwards in arguments to say you are against many assets being used on one network, but then support a network that supports many assets.

---

i actually do want consensus. the true consensus of 2009-2016, as invented by bitcoins inventor. not the bastardised mandatory upgrade 'backward compatibility' non-consensus thing that was used in 2017 where users did not need to upgrade their node before activation is allowed.(backward compatibility" = no vote at node level) nor is true consensus where the miners were threatened to change a flag else get your block rejected before activation(to fake 100% vote)
before miners were even given software that would accept the feature if it would activate.(they just needed to change a flag, not their software)

consensus is more about a feature that does not activate unless the majority is ready for it.
devs didnt like consensus as they only got 45% acceptance nov2016-june 2017
consensus is about no pre activation threat. no rejecting of blocks before activation.
consensus is just that it wont activate unless users/pools want it.. consensus is not that it activates and unless people want it they will find themselves on a fork.

in 2017 however it was activated before people were ready for it. the vote was counted before pools and users had majority adoption of the software the feature required to use the feature.

as for trying to at the end portray i continue to use bitcoin because i must paradoxically like the new gateways into altnets. sorry but no. i like bitcoin for its legacy utility. not its segwit sidesteps into altnets.
i can continue to use bitcoin for its legacy features.

i dislike the groups that want to tarnish and limit bitcoins legacy features just so they can sell their altnet proposition. i dislike the sidesteps of broken promises that dont help the legacy features scale by groups that want people to move over to an altnet by their propaganda that bitcoins legacy features are broke and limited, even when that group are the ones limiting bitcoins legacy features from scaling.

---

one last thing..
when i say i. its not because i am the only one. . i say i because i speak for myself. there are others, thousands of others that speak for themselves even when others agree with the stuff i say. i do not try to claim "we" are all united as a chummy group of superiority like a special egotist boys club.

i would rather have thousands of independent minds agreeing independently, than have a "we" centralised sheeple group singing from the same hymn sheet, hugging and ass kissing each other like a collective of robots.

P.S
i had another 4 messages deleted today. but before you get excited thinking its content related.. sorry but all 4 were merges.

but dont worry, you dont need to stick your foot out to step up and defend people to the death. especially when your the second inline putting your foot out to trip people up and let them fall off a cliff edge .. to their death.

maybe not try stepping infront of people pretending to defend. but instead just step back a bit, especially if your armour consists of a wearable billboard for an altnet

---

can i just ask one simple question which might clear up the opposition between us and make me understand you better

why do you hate blockchains soo much with your pruning crusade and altnet campaigns


what do you have against satoshi's 13 years old invention, which has got you so riled up to be everything against blockchains?

don't worry about blackhatcoiner.

he doesn't understand the principle of storing the entire blockchain to help the backbone of the decentralised network.
he doesn't care about seeding the blockchain for others,
he doesn't care about being helpful to the network or the security benefits of the blocks hashes
nor does he care for blockchains as a whole


even now he tries convincing people to prune even when they found no issue with being a full node but issues pruning.

his motives are that pruning is what everyone should do and no one should be a full node(means archiving blockchain)
he has tried before to tweak the grammar to make "full node2 mean pruned.

and once set with people pruning, he then wants to later advertise to you to not use your node to move coins on the bitcoin network but lock them up in a co-partnered contract, to use on another network.

he is not in your house looking at your screen or seeing your settings or knowing your hard drive specs, so when he makes accusations that he knows better about what and how you are running things.. he has a motive behind it

its good that you are a full node and want to help the backbone of the decentralised network by following the original principles. i hope you enjoy bitcoin and not end up getting swayed over to other networks for their commercial gain

mynonce thinks you are referring to the privatekey->public address sequence of events of cryptography. not block hashing (which you are asking about) which has no ripemd160.

..
a better answer to your question about block hash generation is
when you have a block with 1mb of data.
both sha256 and sha512 do not take that entire block of 1mb data and hash it as a single message.
both of them break up the 1mb into smaller messages. and then compute them as a series.

the end result hash is the same length no matter what the blocksize message is.
it doesnt matter if a block is 1mb or 20mb. the hash length is the same.
for sha256 the resultant hash is 32byte
for sha512 the resultant hash is 64byte

these end resultant hash values
for sha256(32byte) and sha512(64byte) dont really take up much space in a block
EG a block has 2 hash. one for current block and another for previous block. so thats 64byte 128byte respectively

meaning a 1mb block of 1,000,000byte is only taking up 64 or 128byte of that million. which is 0.0064%-0.0128% of a block

if a block was 4mb.. 4,000,000byte is taken up by up 64 or 128byte of that 4million. which is 0.0016%-0.0032% of a block
again negligible impact.

because computers can hash soo soo quickly. (millions of times a second (cpu) trillions/sec(asic)) you are not going to see any real time delay/advantage if it was sha256 or sha512
we are not talking about millisecond differences, nor microsecond differences, nor nanosecond differences, but picoseconds differences at best

the only real impact.. would be all of them 1.5million mining asic machines hashing blocks would become obsolete the second a hash algo change happens. and new asics handling sha512 will have to run in their place.

he was laughing WHILST the news interviewer was still asking the question.
he was trying to respond whilst the news interviewer was still asking the question.

when he finally had a chance to speak
he started talking to give an answer, in 0.3 seconds after the interviewer asked. and he did actually say "yes i will be taking my first 3 paychecks in bitcoins"

the interviewer took 20 seconds to ask a question. and the mayor responded straight away answering each of the questions. and said he would take his first 3 paychecks in bitcoin within the 51st seconds of the video,

i seen no delay in responding, no hesitation

that saying is usually told to people when someone wants something but not willing to pay for it. so wants to reward them with best wishes after their death.

i think you will find that teachers would rather be paid in currency now, so they can live and be comfortable now, not paid in best wishes about how great their life will be after death.

i respect peoples religion. but trying to say dont worry about starving today.. its ok to die because i believe you will get a good life next time.. just does not present well as a moral message about humanity, about being respectful and peaceful and helpful.

im more aligned to religious people that want to help people in the now, in this life.

he doesnt need to show the money.
he just has to write a letter to the court using the W&K letterhead, saying "money received, no contest, no dispute"
thats it

only difference?
you forgot the lack of being a seeder to other peers for their IBD
oh.. and if all full nodes did prune.. who do new users then leech their IBD from..
                                                    who do any users then re-sync from


if there is a hack. the fullnode checks the blockchain hashes and if the data matches, the blocks do not get rejected and so life continues. a re-sync is only needed if the blockchain was compromised, rather than your favoured UTXOset database that doesnt have this hash checking ability to verify integrity of old data..

i know you dont believe in blockchains and you are trying hard to drive people not to use blockchains. but take a break for once from your PR campaign.. there are reasons why blockchains were invented and a reason why blockchains provide security above the 'smart contract validation' stuff you think only exists in nodes


he didnt mention which software he had and i didnt ask. also if you do have all UTXO you dont need to re-sync to find balance.. its there in the full UTXO set.. (unless the UTXO set is not there.).

pruned nodes dont have Pow, pruned has nothing to do with PoW
the hash is not about PoW its about the 'chain' of Id's where the chain is a unique cryptography hash that is formed by the unique data of the block which contains the ID of the last block.
destroy the block means the ID wont be able to check the block is still in correct form, because there is no block. meaning

though pruned nodes do validate all transactions when it does the IBD. it then does not keep the blocks. meaning it has to trust that a hacker hasnt manipulated the data afterwards because they cant just do a local re-check in seconds to ensure the database they have has not altered.

pruned nodes are not supposed to be deemed as full nodes minus archiving
but instead litewallets + better verification at first sight

in short,
not fullnode minus
but litewallet plus

other features disabled when 'prune' is set. is
when not storing all UTXO's and only storing UTXO associated with your keys. you then dont relay other peoples transactions. because you cant verify transactions at the relay stage(unconfirmed)

protest all they like. but without a gun..
protests are not destruction of property. protests are not about shooting

with a gun, someone is more then likely to get shot.. thats not protesting. thats violence and terrorism

violence doesnt just hurt their cause. it also can hurt their body, someone elses body. and their familes