governments are not "unable to make up their minds".. what you have to realise is that a government cannot regulate a business that operates in crypto without the government going through a certain process.

take many things, alcohol, fishing, driving. drugs

a government first needs to prohibit something. to make it illegal for people to use openly. to then be able to give licences and permits to certain people and regulate them to allow them to use it under certain conditions..

a government can just offer a licence or regulate a business or punish a business for bad practices if there is no initial prohibition to make it illegal to use openly. this is because if it remained openly usable without prohibition. then the licence/permit/regulation becomes useless and unenforceable.

research the New York 'bitlicence' as a prime example

did you know that in the 1900's anyone could take morphine or drink alcohol openly without consequence.
then they prohibited it... and then.. they permitted it under licence with certain rules of use. (age, not while driving, not exceed certain volume of consumption)

they could not have done the permitted use with certain rules without the initial prohibition

even slavery..
they had to make it illegal for a black man to be a citizen. to then prohibit black people from being free. to then set rules on what black people can and cant do in society.

even now its not open freedom. its licenced ability. humans are not "free" we have to follow laws. because we are within a countries jurisdiction

locking up funds is a bitcoin thing. its not a LN thing. its not measured in millisats, it is not involving "routing" or "invoices" and doesnt require other people to be online to permission the lock.

do not even attempt to try to trivialise the separate things by pretending its the same. even when you want to flip flop in one message they are separate things and then flip flop they are the same thing

you are the one causing the strawman confusion by trying stupidly to make LN be thought of as bitcoin


i have not been the one trying to say that its all the same and that LN is part of bitcoins network. you and your friends of the altnet are the strawmen trying to trivialise it to try making it all sound like the same thing.

and the funnier part is how this whole topic has turned into a altnet promotion topic. just look at Doomad pushing hard to advertise it.

well it is not bitcoin. why do you suggest that me saying its not bitcoin with statements like "argue" and "but". LN is a lightning network not a bitcoin network
lightning is a network for multiple crypto currencies. its not a 'bitcoin' only thing

to use another altnet fangirl analogy
its like ketchup. no one calls it the french fry layer
everyone knows ketchup can be used for multiple things. so why say it should be only talked about as something for french fries or even pretend it is french fries when its obviously ketchup

ketchup has different nutrient content than fries. ketchup is stored in different packaging as fries and ketchup is served differently then fries. fries are put into paper containers. ketchup is squeezed out of plastic bottles. ketchup has a messy liquidity issue with how it flows.

i know you want to act as if its 'bitcoin2.0", but thats just to tag on a brand recognised coin to win instant fame and trust. even though LN's flaws do not deserve the trust bitcoin has.

and i am surprised rath is now trying to confuse the bitcoin locks vs the LN payments. by pretending the settlement commitment is the same contract as the invoice/payment temporary things that dont broadcast.

they are separate things. for separate purposes. appearing on separate networks

just grow up. seems you cant put your fangirl bias aside to think logically.

LN's payments are denominated in millisats. something that does not confirm on the bitcoin network.

funny part is YOU are now saying that LN payments DO confirm on the bitcoin network even though just yesterday you were saying no one has ever claimed that lightning transaction will be confirmed on the bitcoin network

you keep contradicting yourself.
why is it that LN fangirls flip flop and change their mind about how LN should be described. its as if they are just reading some glossy pamphlet of positive words, without actually trying to look at the code or actual functions.

by you flip flopping and contradicting even yourself. seems you are misstating the facts to fit your ever changing narrative. yet my narrative has stayed the same and can be backed up by code and issues raised by LN devs themselves.

anyway it seems you cannot escape your never ending desire to try promoting LN and coax people to use it as oppose to using bitcoin. so ill just leave you alone in your insane flips and flops. and just chuckle at your failed attempts to give straight honest answers.

i see no point trying to explain things outside of your glossy pamphlet of misstatements. because you have obviously failed to even try to spend 10 minutes thinking outside your fangirl prospective. so no point wasting time explaining things to the ignorant flip flopper fantasists of altnet promoters

just one example

funny part is you merited him 4 merits.
he did not explain the LN payments are the <10 second ones that do not broadcast('state' aka promise aka htlc micropayment in millisat). and there are separate contracts that needs a co-signer and terms of punishment agreement and time lock validity agreement as well as joint agreement of what each other owes the other person rounded to nearest sat, and deducted an amount for onchain fee to whomever should pay the fee.

much like many other examples of the same i have seen spouted out around this forum and the larger reader base of the internet for the last 3 years.

the funnier thing is .. this topic was created to ask about bitcoins utility of transacting as "everyday spending currency"
and literally the first 5 responses were people promoting and advertising LN as something people should use to move everyday spends of btc. as if to say that advertising another network was ontopic and to do with bitcoin transactions that require 10min block confirms.

sorry but LN is not a network that has anything to do with bitcoin onchain. or transacting onchain. LN has no chain
LN is separate for a reason.

if you need more examples of people pretending that LN is bitcoin then just go look at the many other LN fangirls.
including a recent topic made by titular(you merited him too). where by he pretended to be teaching students about bitcoin. but never let them experience any onchain transacting. but just threw them straight into an LN experience of a testnet. but advertised to them they are experiencing bitcoin and that the experience might inspire them to be bitcoin devs and bitcoin maintainers.. (facepalm)

..
now before hitting the reply button to beat your chest about how you hate that people are not positively talking about LN and not trying to convert people into becoming LN users...(true reason for your hostility towards me)
take just 10 minutes. step back from the keyboard. take a seat, take a few calming deep breaths. and spend the next 9 minutes and 30 seconds, to ponder this.

imagine you are not already down the LN fangirl rabbit hole. imagine your new to the LN thing. and someone approached you to ask you as a unbiased person to look at LN for the first time and come up with a promotional campaign about its niche proposition that explains why its different.

now ask yourself this, logically, using common sense, and unbiased thoughts and with ethics and morals of honesty.
does the phrase "bitcoin layer two" really describe:
1. what LN does.
2. what benefits it offers
3. why its different to bitcoin
4. what niche it covets
5. how many networks it can peg to

or
does it just try to advertise that its
1. bitcoin centric
2. part of bitcoin
3. is bitcoin
4. is bitcoin2.0 or bitcoin+
5. just trying to steal existing bitcoin fanbase to this altnet without having to explain anything critical

what you will find is that a true unbiased PR team. would find a 'hook', buzzword, or slogan to give to LN that can explain LN simply. and avoid confusion.

3 words fit better
a. "multi-crypto micropayment system"
b. "multi-crypto faster payment system"
c. "nonblockchain payment routing"

i truly understand that you fangirls think that stealing existing fame of another community is "smart PR"
i truly understand that you fangirls think that hiding the pitfalls, bugs, faults is "smart PR"
but thats deceptive PR caring more about coaxing people across, more so then being concerned about the problems users will experience after being coaxed/misled.

honest ethical PR would be where by instead of trying to claim its bitcoin2.0 when infact its a network that pegs to many blockchains. its more honest to explain the differences, so that it can actually grab peoples attention more for why people might need it.
where by advertising LN more honestly about why its different can reveal its niche better. and help explain why it can do things bitcoin cant. and why there might be purpose for LN.. and why its not bitcoin.
 
..instead of just tagging itself to be presented as bitcoin 2.0, doing so just to win instant name recognition brownie points. where all its doing is making people believe it is bitcoin, only for bitcoin, has the same things as bitcoin. which leads people to still wonder why its needed...

where the only answer they can come up with is bitcoin(the real one) is obsolete and not worth using because LN is the new bitcoin. thus deceiving people to offramp and use LN because they think bitcoin(the real one) is obsolete/broke/not going to work/cant scale/wont be fixed.

again take the remaining minutes to think about the issue not from your fan girl prospective.

the 2 quotes above imply the kids were going to learn about bitcoin and blockchains. with the hope it inspires the kids to become bitcoin devs that maintain the code and support the blockchain

but then.. drum roll
you didnt teach them about bitcoin after all.. so didnt inspire them to get involved in bitcoin. but instead LN pretending to be bitcoin.

yes i took your quotes and looked at what you said without the noobish disbelief that LN is bitcoin. because LN is not bitcoin.

heck even you said yourself you did not want to teach the kids bitcoin, or blockchains or bitcoin transactions.

so yea a disservice.


literally contradicting yourself
saying he did teach bitcoin, but then admit its not the same network and not even bitcoin but testnet pegs.

one thing you missed out on is LN payments are millisats which are not compatible with testnet or bitcoin network.
so again, not teaching bitcoin, but instead teaching 'LN msat of testnet coin pegs'

titular literally said he didnt specify the lesson was on bitcoin(in this forum topic) as his final honest admission, even if he was telling the kids they were learning about bitcoin..

..
as for your IOU contradictions



what you dont realise is in LN there are 2 'promises' there is the 'state' promise(millisat denominated(HTLC)) and there is the commitment promise.. both of which are not settled when signed. meaning its an IOU sitting around waiting to be fulfilled. which is the very definition of still owing someone something.

as for the 'pony up any time without permission' what you forget is the conversion of the state contract(HTLC) measured in millsats. vs the secondary commitment that rounds up/down values to whole sat denomination and also decides on who is going to pay the onchain fee out of their value allotment. this does require signatures too meaning more permission and agreement

its not a system where people can just broadcast the 'state' HTLC payment without anyones permission. it requires a secondary agreement on what a possible settlement should be and the terms/conditions on when and how it should be settled. (the punishment)

the settlement is later thing when they agree its time to settle up whats owed and broadcast the right settlement.
which still needs the other consent in the form of them not activating a punishment.

if you think LN payments in-channel are so finalised and not an agreement to settle later. then such finality of just signing the state would be the end of it. they would not need the sat denominated settlement contract and no need to add punishment clauses.

the reason why there is a settlement is because the in channel promises(iou's) are not final. you cannot guarantee you get paid unless its confirmed. even if someone handed you a signed transaction for you to push to a pool. until its confirmed. you have not yet been paid and thus the other person still owes you.
the reason for the punishments is that the other party can mess with you before it gets a confirmation. and even after confirmation if the transaction in question was not for value that had been in the latest agreed promise.

again. try to learn why there are terms like commitments, settlements and punishments.
and realise these things exist outside the LN payment 'states'(htlc) because it actually does require agreements and permissions on whats owed and then terms for how to settle up later and punishments if trying to settle the wrong promise

will not cheat each other? ooooo you fell down a hole there.. are you sure about that.. you might want to check with even the LN devs that have themselves been cheated out of funds by their channel partner.. hense the invention of LN punishments.. so please have a honest discussion with the devs about the flaws and not just the pro-PR stuff.

your quote above is where you are trying just a little too hard to hide the flaws and pretend there are none.
"commitments" and "punishments" and "settlement" are actually terms that are part of LN... even if you want to ignore and pretend they are not part of it.

no ones permission?? um.. you might need to check on that.. theres this little detail called a signature. and also some other things about which promise is the most uptodate/active promise.

but thank you for now contradicting yourself by now admitting (within same post) that there is a IOU (debt) based system. where they can claim the debt to be settled later.
..but not at anytime. because the locks usually have a set period, and even punishments and stuff have locks too. like most credit cards have..
payment due at end of month. must be paid within x days from due date

but thanks for atleast admitting that the ln 'payments' are not settled value but just later to be settled commitment /promises.. and yes commitments/promises are actually a thing thats described in the code.
(worth mentioning twice)

.. the kids didnt experience anything blockchain when doing their test transactions.. even titular self admitted that he thought that the blockchain stuff was boring and slow.(not entertaining)
funny part is that titular actually says that he never specified he did a less on bitcoin
yet then rambled on about how he was exposing kits to the bitcoin ecosystem..

why oh why do you LN fangirls love contradicting yourselves.

1. pretend you are teaching about the different networks but then pretend its all the same
2. pretend you are teaching them about bitcoin but then use a network that has no blockchain
3. pretend you are teaching them about blockchains, but never do an onchain transaction infront of them


bank 'account' .. emphasis account.. is comparable to channels..
in regards to joint-bank-account. co-signing

where as hubs.. those who are running as financial businesses by co-authorising hundreds/thousands of their 'customers' channels.. would be the banks

people lock their btc into onchain locks(vaults) with the hub(bank) and need the bank to agree on any payment. where the hub(bank) wants its customers to be disgusted by onchain fee's(close account charge) and not want to exit with their btc(gold) and instead offer them cheap exits via different currency(pennys and dimes)

general noob software has too many things set as defaults and make it complicated to change. EG even core demands people 'edit file' of a config file or use command prompts. rather then having a drop down option menu.
even things like being able to manually set a fee or change the fee can sometimes be iffy to do with some wallets that prefer defaults.

...
rather then just calling all software "wallets" they should be clearly defined for their different purposes.
basically use better buzzwords/analogy words.

for instance
a hardware wallet. its just something that by itself holds the keys. so call it a 'keyring'
a lite wallet. it doesnt hold all the accounting and blockchain. so call it a chequebook
a full node wallet. being an archival node stores it all. so call it a briefcase/satchel
an exchange/custodial hot/cold wallet. call it a bank account/vault

make the names less specialist/technical/nerdy.. and more average joe friendly

many noobs are fooled into thinking a pruned node or lite wallet is the same as a full node because "wallet"
if all they care or think bitcoin is about is making transactions. they cant tell the difference. so a better average joe friendly  naming system can help create the different types of involvement and be a better level indicator by calling it names that indicate what it can handle or not... or atleast prompts people to start asking the right questions about whats the difference, rather then blindly thinking they are all the same.

EG for nearly a decade the word "wallet" for something that store keys. has been badly overused. where as keyring is more relevant. as for ones that just make transactions. because bitcoin is not a bank note but more so something that resembles the detailed required for a cheque. a cheque book would be a more appropriate term. it just confuses the noobs less by having words they can understand the purpose of.

cores software should be a full node, and they should allow other brands to be full nodes too, to reduce central points of failure. (without the political assassination attempts of REKT they done in 2014-17) . and if people want to be 'pruned' they they should download a different software which has a different useragent identifier.. so that for instance "core-lite" does a pruned version of IBD

too many noobs are fooled into thinking that when pruning on core, they are then still supporting the backbone of the network. yet reality is they are no longer part of the backbone of seeding blockdata to leachers.

i made my own. to do the tasks i need. whilst still doing the backbone stuff for network support.

for investor wallets. it could include a api call to grab the price of bitcoin on certain days and tag peoples 'received coins' with a price. and then beside it have the current price. to show the profit/loss.

for general users. better address labelling so people in a few years time can look back on their transaction history and see WHO they paid rather then just an address and having to try remembering what that address was used for

if a wallet is a multicoin/multiple network supporting software. be sure to call it that. and not some 'bitcoin layer X' software
i know people see 'bitcoin' and auto trust that if its bitcoin it must be good and trusted. but these software/altnet clients should not be auto-trusted by just bitcoin brand recognition. they should be honest about what the software does, and doesnt do

EG a good example is . although a hardware wallet was initially created for bitcoin utility, because its limit was not for just bitcoin private keys, but keys of different blockchains, they managed to call it "ledger" meaning its for all blockchains. rather then jumping on the bitcoin bus and calling it something silly like 'bitcoin physical' just for brand recognition and auto trust.

EG a bad example is. although a LN wallet can handle different coins. they want to call it 'bitcoin layer 2" or "bitcoin 2.0" just to steal some unearned trust for a wallet and network thats more buggy and faulty than bitcoin wallets/bitcoin network

just saying "supply and demand" is a weak high school F grade students thought.

although there were only 11mill bitcoin in circulation in 2012. the markets had market orders of 1000 coins per order line. so the market supply was HUGE.

in 2021 the bitcoin in general circulation is ~19mill. yet the markets have market orders of under 1btc per order line. so the market supply is small.

back in 2012 there were only really 2-3 exchanges (mtgox, bitstamp, btc-e) so the amount of dollar being deposited into market was huge.
in 2021 there are many dozens of exchanges, meaning the same 'dollar' deposits are diluted and spread out. meaning each market/exchange has less dollar deposited each. meaning the demand per exchange is lower.

what you learn very quickly is it doesnt matter how many coins are in general circulation. what matter is how much coin an average exchange has in its deposit balance to be used for market orders. and when the dollar demand shrinks, so does the market order size of coins shrink. to meet the demand or lack of demand.

this is because coin holders dont want to flood the market with coin, as that would shoot them in the foot and cause a price drop.
if someone wanted to sell 10btc in 2012, it can be done in seconds.
but when the demand(buyer) is low. the seller only sells 0.01btc at a time to not influence a coin flood. and slowly sells coins over a longer period.

..
things that do influence the 'price' is different to what influences the 'value'
imagine the price charts, but instead of 1 line(price) imagine there are 2 lines.
the second line is a hidden line(the value line) which sits way below the price line.

this value line consists of influences like the mining cost, and the amount of coin acquired at certain price points which cause a resistance to drop below a periodic low.

like right now i cant see the price dipping below $20k again. because in pretty much every country no one can mine for under $20k, so no one wants to mine and sell for a loss. and if the price of bitcoin reached $30k you will see the countries with more expensive mining costs decide to just buy coin, thus help prop up the price to avoid it continually decrease.

as for the first line, the visible price line. this is a combination of the acquisition value plus emotional/social speculation. but what you do find is that if you calculated the most expensive country to mine, that cost is under $80k. so no one would want to buy coin for over $80k right now, as its easier for people in all countries to just mine coin cheaper if the price surpassed $80k

so within this $20k-$80k window. is the volatile yo-yo game of speculation.

you cannot predict the price. but if you imagine the 20k to 80k range. and compare it to current price. you can gauge if the price is either near value or near premium. and then you can guess if the sentiment is desirable to buy(near value) or over hyped and ready to sell(near premium)

by avoiding using a bitcoin transaction to lock funds up. by avoiding the settlement.. you have completely avoided bitcoin entirely.

you have only exposed them to LN payments. which is a totally different network. using a unit of measure called millisats which is a something the bitcoin ecosystem does not understand.

so by asking the question did you do your students a disservice. then yes.

the funny part is the only people giving you merit are the altnet LN lovers.

...
its much like doing students a disservice in economics by not explaining the difference between a credit card and a debit card. and just giving them free fiat and saying go spend it. not explaining the pitfalls of credit cards. where all they think about is that money comes to them for free and they can spend it without repercussions or debt or problems later.
without explaining that at the end of the month they need to do something to settle up.

if you really want to teach kids that bitcoin is a network that doesnt have a blockchain. doesnt have consensus, doesnt have confirmations.. you have succeeded.. but what you have succeeded at is teaching kids nothing about bitcoin. but some other network being falsely called bitcoin.

your ASSUMPTION is that LN is a 'layer' because altnet promoters called it so, even if the altnet has none of the features of bitcoin. the units of measure are different the invoice format is different to a bitcoin transaction. the 'pass the parcel' routing is different to the relay-confirm process.

if you fail to explain the differences, then you have done a disservice

as blackhatcoiner subtly hinted at:
the students now have a experience where they think "bitcoin" is instant. has no 10minute confirms, and no large fee's. when they later come to use it they will probably be convinced to use LN via depositing fiat into an exchange and then handed millisats into a LN lite wallet.

but then when they find out a month later that they need to settle up and suddely the issues prop up they were never aware of, like confirm times and how the channel partner can abuse the process so the student needs to exit quick. he will not like using real bitcoin, due to the fee's and delays. and so will as many LN supports hope to see. have the student atomic swap his millisats for an altcoin like LTC which is faster and cheaper to settle. thus giving the channel co partner the btc settlement in full.

and yes thats the game theoriy most of the large 'hubs' of LN want to see. lock up the gold, let people play with paper money, and when people want to settle give them copper/brass/nickle coins and thus the 'bank' keeps the gold..

its not innovative. its old school economics. its a game thats been played for centuries.
LN lacks the bitcoin innovation. lacks the whole point of blockchains. co-signed accounts(channels) is old school, its joint-bank-accounts. something married people have been doing for centuries.
when the guy wants orange juice for breakfast the next day, he asks the wife to pay the milkman who then pays the orange juice supplier. and the next day the orange juice arrives for the man.

just remember. when having a joint bank account the money is not yours untill its all settled in the divorce

what you will find. in law. is that for a government to be able to apply policies and regulations and licence certain businesses to operate on such things like crypto. they first need to make it illegal to use crypto. and then develop the 'access' permit/licence that then allows only certain businesses to engage in crypto if they follow government rules.

dont think of a country banning crypto as the end of a debate. think of it as just chapter 1 of government acceptance.

2017 had a bigger exit. because those that bought into the 2013's $1.2k ATH, then waited 3-4 years at sub $900 amounts. feeling like they were at a constant loss for 3-4 years. then it sprung upto 2017's $20k ATH, so they exited thinking it was their lucky day, never to re-occur again. they were happy to leave with an 16x (1600%) for 4 year wait.

the 2017 $20k ATH to 2020 $65k was only a 3.25x and so people were not as jumpy about exiting.
those that bought at 2017's ATH want atleast a 5x so $100k minimum
there is also a bunch that bought in at the 2018 $4k YL (year low) want to get out with a 20x(2000%) investment for 3-4 years. so wanting $80-$100k

so thats why the $100k is a popular rounded number alot of people are collectively chanting

market cap is meaningless

anyone can make an altcoin with 5 trillion coins premined. and sell just 0.01 coin for $1. and instantly they have created a market cap of $500 trillion

yep for just $1 you too can make bitcoins $1trill market cap become just 0.2% of your $1 spend altcoins cap

so teacher wants to teach about bitcoin. but instead of teaching bitcoin. he was getting kids to use a lite wallet with a different network.. whereby to do 3 transactions took the class nearly an hour and had lots of issues/failures..
i would not call that a good 'show of outright innovating and cool technology' nor a show of bitcoin

so what did they learn.
a. what they think bitcoin is, is some instant payment system that doesnt involves confirmations/blockchains.
      problem: when actually using bitcoin in the future, they realise their lesson was nothing like what bitcoin performs like
      problem: they think they get free already loaded up value. again not what bitcoin actually is like
      problem: they get shocked when the see confirmations needed on actual bitcoin transactions.

b. what they think bitcoin is, is some electrum lite wallet
      problem: they dont learn about blockchains or network security or consensus
      problem: they think their lite wallet altnet experience is the same security as bitcoin because teacher told them its bitcoin

c. whether using titulars linked video or blackhatcoiners link.. both are describing bitcoin.
     problem: yet what titular taught in class as a practical expereince is not bitcoin. its LN.
     problem: titular pre-set up channels to avoid his students even experiencing a blockchain transaction
     problem: kids think the payment for coffee is final and settled without seeing the real settlement process

all in all titular did not teach bitcoin. but an altnet crypto

so yes it was a disservice
your lesson was not preaching the blessings of bitcoin. but was showing the inferior protocols of inferior networks

EG LN has no 'public ledger everyone can see and agree on' for its instant payments.
and the students never got to experience the ledger and protocol stuff of bitcoin

maybe he did not mean the fiat currency "dollar". (bank accounts of hundreds of millions of citizens)


but what if he meant the world bank reserve "petro dollar". the one thats just got reserves/accounts of 200 countries that only do funds movements of $Xbill when countries are sanctioned or doing international aid donations, or buying oil buy the cargo ship/oil tanker load.

.
even though the petro dollar movements of countries reserves are then manageable on a blockchain. what people still miss is the control aspect of the 'world bank'

it certainly wont use bitcoin as a reserve. they would however invent their own crypto so that they are in full control of the 200 nodes of their 'world bank network' to then set or agree on new rules as it develops.

after all the bitcoin market cap is not a meaningful number that represents actually having $0.95trillion in reserves stored in some vault somewhere.. the market cap is just the current price of say a sale of 0.01btc being sold right now for $500. which just calculates as being $50k a coin(by just doing math) which then calculates as $0.95trill.

market cap is just a math multiplication. not a vault audit result

LN doesnt have a blockchain. there is no need of a softfork.
LN is already failing in the respect of 'hop/routing' and so they are moving more to the 'hub/spoke' model.

the initial overhype/promise of LN was
'just lock up your funds into A channel(singular) and be able to send instant unlimited payments to anyone'

now its more like
'divide up and lock up your funds into channels(plural) with the main retailers you regularly spend with to send them instant unsettled value'

for me, what i see is that many religious people care too much about the ettiquete of promoting their religious beliefs and yet by promoting their religious loyalty. they are then acting like annoying, vengeful control freaks.

religion is suppose to be about respecting those around you, not getting angry, turning the other cheeks and such. yet i see it happen many times
"oh my goodness, you didnt go to church at 10am on a sunday. you should die in a pit of fire"
"you havnt read the bible in 10 years and cant quote me the correct passage, die sinner die"
"you call it xmas, thats disrespecting to a 2000y.o. skeletons biography. how dare you"

doesnt really sound very peace, loving, respectful

if you care more about people quoting passages from a 2000yo book verbatim, rather than just read the old law's and the fables/stories in it which teach law and order and how people should act. then you have missed the entire purpose of the book

it doesnt matter if you know every word of the fable "the boy who cried wolf", it doesnt matter if you change the name of the boy. what actually matter is that you learn never to lie about something happening when it hasnt happened, because sooner or later people stop listening to you. then when the event does happen and you try to warn them, they wont take you serious.

prime example "jesus's second coming is nigh, he will be reborn and save us soon".. yawn heard that a million times. not interested. and if it did happen. pfft, probably a lie too

its like the loaves and fishes. its not about knowing how many loaves or reading that it was a miracle. it was about even if you think you have a little bit, sharing it can help more then yourself.

if you just want to be one of those religious people that care more about exact quotes, and not the underlying meaning of the context. well you are the one disrespecting the efforts of the original stories purpose

it doesnt matter if he is called jesus or messiah or Yeshua or Iesous.

banks control the economy.
governments control the state(law and land)

there is a divide of power

you might think that banks control a country(thinking they are a shadow/puppetmaster of president/prime minister). but you would be wrong.

what you realise is. in democracy. where representatives listen to the citizens and the representatives guide laws towards citizens wishes, the 'citizen' in the case is not average joe family. its actually the large industry like banks and real estate/land owners.

citizens do not control the country. presidents and prime ministers do. they only lean towards favouring certain citizens wishes to just stay electable and to pander to things that can benefit the leaders.
this may appear like the banks control. but its not. its the banks ability to play the system by being the loud voice of citizens and bribe, show worthiness to be listened to for certain things.. but even then the actual nations leaders can still say no/not listen.

this is not control. else citizens(big industry) could change many many laws. but instead large industry have to plea their case to leaders. and hope to get a listening ear

a bank cannot press a big red button and send a nuke to N.korea
a bank cannot make it illegal to be gay, religious, or obese.
a bank cannot declare a certain day of the year as a "bank holiday" even when it has the word "bank" in the name
a bank cannot disband a government or set rules governments cant break

a government can declare certain bank notes no longer in circulation without needing the banks permission
a government can set interest rate limits on bank loans without needing a banks permission
a government can shut down a bank, or set rules/regulations on a bank

and yet on bitcoin whether i send $1 or $1mill (0.0002 or 20btc) i dont have to think about rebalancing different accounts, or wondering about which route to take by seeing who can pass the parcel. my destination will get it guaranteed and confirmed where by their confirmed payment is actually their's, for good, no ifs or buts or 'maybe laters'. they dont need to worry about "what if next month the sender tries to scam me and i need to be online to spot the broadcast 24/7 and online within a certain time period to punish him to make sure it confirms in my favour"

its things like this that those promoting LN as bitcoin. seem to forget to mention as the differences that make it not bitcoin.

like i said if you lot fairly and openly atleast inform people of the differences without trying to tag your altnet as bitcoin2.0 thing, when its obviously a separate mutli crypto network. people could then potentially see why its different and why its even needed as a niche service, as a separate offering to what bitcoin does.

all these subliminal and subtle hints that it IS bitcoin2.0. is just false advertising and trying to say bitcoin is broke, bitcoin cant be fixed, but here is bitcoin2.0. suggesting 'everyone abandon bitcoin as its not fit for daily purpose and just use bitcoin 2.0 because it is better'... yet ultimately thats a complete lie, when novice users try to use LN and end up scratching their head even more, with the iffy installation requirements and then the channels setup hurdles and then the non guarantee of payment even with 5+ co-signed accounts(channels).

so atleast dont pretend its bitcoin 2.0 when its actually more like 'multicoin 0.1beta'

....need i say more
i cannot believe in 13 hours you forgot your own side of your debate

actually its more like you saying. that altnets are bitcoin because they too use p2wpkh. if you want to get pedantic.

reality is:
a transaction that includes a utxo on the bitcoin blockchain thats using say p2pkh that gets confirmed by the bitcoin blockchain. and accepted by fullnode peers of the bitcoin network. are part of bitcoin.

if 'payments' use p2wpkh but are denominated in 'picobitcoin-1' (millisats) which bitcoins blockchain rules dont understand and wont get confirmed by the bitcoin network or accepted by bitcoin full node peers.. then its not bitcoin.

emphasis. just because it uses p2wpkh, does not mean it will be accepted on the bitcoin network guaranteed.., because other parts of the "payment" uses millisats, that are not supported by the bitcoin network

thus using p2wpkh is not a defining thing that decides if something is bitcoin

maybe you need to learn the differences of what LN does vs bitcoin.

..
i find it strange how the altnet lovers are trying soo hard to declare their altnet as being bitcoin. even when its a separate network and different payment 'forwarding' system to bitcoin.

if they just said that its a multicoin faster payment rail. and listed the pro's and cons honestly. they could actually find a niche and their own community of loyalist that want such things. without trying to tarnish bitcoins utility and over exaggerate the altnets ability. just to promote their altnet as being better than bitcoin.

the funnier thing is these altnet lovers also want to now express that bitcoin full nodes dont need to be blockchain archivers to support the backbone of the network, where they want to promote that 'fullnodes' just need to scan the blockchain once and just keep a UTXO set to ensure the users own funds are legit.

in my eyes thats just too much BSing to try getting others to stop supporting bitcoin, while risking their value on altnets