anyone else notice that its the same exact qr code each person is holding. just look at the dot pattern.

the homeless are not getting individual addresses they are just holding up the same piece of paper where funds all go to one location.

this means an individual homeless guy cant individually get funded and spend the funds individually for his own food. i smell something fishy and i dot think its a mc Filet-O-Fish

to me btc (core) is like the 'petro'/USD of dollar (the more popular world wide and internationally talked about. but instead of trying to proclaim btc(core) as THE one and only bitcoin. is just as bad as calling bch(cash) THE one and only bitcoin

things would have been diffrent if core fans and devs didnt institute themselves as the power house years ago, and perform rekt campaigns. if they just listened to the community as a whole and stayed as a united single community of multiple brands all working on the same consensus, then things would have been simpler

core having the mindset of "if u dont like our rules "f**k off" is cores own fault

i am not 'cash' camp nor core camp. as i think no one should own 'bitcoin'
but since core own btc rule proposals btc is not the same as the 2009-2015 intention/ethos. thus its just best to treat things as separate communities/nations of something that was unified years ago

but if you take 5 steps back away from the social drama and ask yourself this.. you may see that things are not scammy. but just social drama provocations

if you have $10k.
if you 'accidentally' bought bch, you would get 24.3 coin
if you 'accidentally' bought btc, you would get 1.26 coin

when realising the mistake of not understanding which community/nation you bought into. you could just convert one into the other and be equal.

the only time there would be a scam is if they were selling bch where you would only get 1.26bch per $10k right now. which is not the case

the best way to view it without getting into social drama is this
no one should own "bitcoin" neither the cash crew, not the core crew.

yes there is alot of drama from the core crew trying to point finger in a subtle underhanded way to try gaining control of 'bitcoin'
 but ultimatelly no one should own it.

as for differentiating the 2 without drama..
think of bitcoin core(btc) as american dollar
think of bitcoin cash(bch) as canadian dollar
think of bitcoin sv(bsv) as australian dollar(well zimbabwe dollar)

that way conceptually in your mind you realise there is no single owner of 'dollar' but then learn to grasp the fact that different communities have their own 'dollar' and locally in their communities they just communicate it as such as 'dollar'

its not about causing a civil war. its about communication understanding.. EG if you walk into a canadian retailer and see something priced at $10. you would be correct to just presume that in that community the price is canadian dollar and not zimbabwe. its not a fight over who should own bitcoin. because no one should. its just about learning that core do not own 'bitcoin' just like america dont own 'dollar'

if the bch/sv and others reset the blockchain to genesis and changed the source code to change the function of their coin right to the start then none of them have the right to call themselves bitcoin as none of them have any evidence of linkage to satoshi

1. 'coinmarketcap' is crap. anyone can make a coin of 5trillion tokens. sell one token for $1 and instantly have a market cap of $5trillion.. even when the coin is useless. so dont make any judgements based on the market cap.

2. the market cap is not a bank balance holding. again as explained in (1) the holding is ZERO.. even the $1 used in example(1) is not held anywhere. the seller got the $1 and probably spend it on gum or soda.. again the market cap not a bank holding balance, it is just a multiplication of coins in circulation by the latest price. so do no i am repeating do not think a coin is healthy due to market cap

3. coins can have lots of technology(or atleast jargon impressive buzzwords that sound good) but if the coin has no real world purpose. its useless. dont look for coins based on jargon/buzzwords. look for ones that can display real world active usage. not potential/not theoretical, but actual real world usage. take for instance tokens based on healthcare, yet none of them are actually used in healthcare. but simply suggested that the 'technology can revolutionise healthcare. if the coin inventor has not been contracted/commissioned by a healthcare provider to make a coin, then dont expect the coin after public release to then suddenly get adopted into a central system like healthcare. as its too late for them to control it once its in the wild(hense why governments wont adopt bitcoin as a national currency as its already too wild to be government controlled)

4. generally if the coin/token appears to be made by some unknown group/script kiddies that came up with an idea, treat it as a pump/dump crap coin. if a business/establishment creates a coin and has a use for it themselves, then it has potential.

issues:
if you want to be a full node. then take the big boy pants, put them on and be a full node. if your just gonna leach the blockdata from someone else and then strip signatures, prune and filter to be left with pretty much just utxo's your no longer a full node. no longer able to seed the full data to others.
so just give up starting as a full node if next week your going to be a useless litewallet.
make the choice be a full node or a lite wallet.

solutions:
the main concern for full nodes is not the physical space. nor the actual time to download the full sync. but the fact that the main reference software is coded that you cant even see a estimated balance or send out a transaction until the sync is complete. thus making the sync appear slow because your sat there doing nothing twiddling your thumbs waiting for it.

but, you dont actually have to wait. so the solution is simple.
instead of starting as full node leaching off others to then downgrade to spv/litewallet. wasting others resources. do the opposite
get a UTXO set first to get users active and making transactions with a 'independently unverified balance' as a spv/lite wallet which is still safe because if your personal utxo is spent the network wont allow it to relay/confirm in a new block. then. the syncing to get the full archive and verify all transactions becomes a background task, thus no twiddling idle thumbs.

tl:dr
dont start as full and downgrade to spv
start as spv and upgrade to full

so lets summarise it all and just end the whole satoshi/craig drama once and for all..

craig pretended to be satoshi or friends of satoshi by saying he set up a 'tulip' trust containing addresses of satoshi's stash of coins amounting to ~1m coins.
which when looking at the blockchain data and extranonce reveals ~20k addresses of 50coin
craig could never prove ownership, and failed foolishly to prove owner ship of the satoshi stash

craig now says he has control of a trust of ~1m coins of some clustered amounts of coins (not satoshi stash) where some addresses contain 110k, 53k and other large clustered amounts(to atleast try to say he still has ~1m coin collateral)

now this new cluster 'trust' has been disproven to be owned by craig.

he finally put a nail in his own coffin and the australian government who gave him some tax privileges due to a 'trust of ~1m coin collateral' will come after his ass. as will many corporate investors who also invested in craig based on the assumption craig had collateral of ~1m coins

THOR TURBO
https://www.bitrefill.com/thor-turbo-channels/?hl=en

you already been told about this several times, ..
dont be ignorant/arrogant. try to research instead

https://blog.bitrefill.com/the-hottest-lightning-network-tech-features-for-2019-and-beyond-dbaaac6ddfa4

you do realise for longer than you have even been a forum member i have been mentioning ways to fit more tx per block without needing to jump to "big blocks" ('big blocks' refers to not progressive small adjustments but huge leaps such as the fud propaganda of 'gigabytes by midnight')

there are many ways to gain more transaction throughput, things such as
reduce the sigops:- reduces ability to fill a block with just a handfull of transactions and helps relay speeds
less wishy washy bloated tx formats
a fee structure that changes people habits
progressive buffer growth, not leaps

also it was core with their mandatory bilateral split (a buzzword gmax uses) that was organised and struck first.. should you care to read some code and blockdata(like i told you several times in many topics). so dont go now trying to meander the conversation into bitcoin cash social drama and again try to concentrate on learning about bitcoin.

really go try it.
i find it funny how either you are ignorant to research things told to you sveral times before, or how arrogant you are to keep mentioning things you dont know about but just repeat just to cause social drama to deflect and meander the topic away from actual topic discussion.

now do not reply to me. spend time learning about bitcoin and lets have the next reply you make concern bitcoin. not social drama. if you end up replying to me because you dont like what i have said. press the ignore button instead. then go use the spare time to learn about bitcoin

too many scams and thefts which lead people to complain to localbitcoins, so localbitcoins removed it to remove the headache

the only real payment method is a bank account direct transfer, but even a direct bank transfer is not without scam risk. this is why even hobby localbitcoiners ask for KYC. knowing enough about the fiat sender to prove the person does own the fiat senders bank account so they cant try reversal scams (pretend they got hacked/id frauded to get refund)

though MSB(money service businesses) by regulatory policy NEED to KYC, hobby localbitcoiners do it for personal reasons to avoid scammers trying to grab their fiat back and keeping the coin

this is why people prefer to actually meetup at bitcoin social events/conferences/use ATMS as its harder to grab the money back using the false pretence of "i got hacked/ID frauded" which is easy to achieve remotely

just remember. if you had a suitcase of cash would you hand it over to a stranger you met 5 minuts ago. .. no? well thats why its even riskier to do remote payments if you dont know who your trading with. (you cant slap them with a wet fish if they scam you). so love or hate KYC. atleast recognise why people do it even if they are not regulated, and why some services just avoid certain payment methods completely (paypal used to/still is the chargeback king of scammer tools)

alot of people are blaming fee's on these things
1. "blockchains are broke/cant cope"
2. "mempools are too full"
3. "fee's are using an ebay-esq/auction model, not a plane/train ticket model"

all of this is nothing to do with technical flaws of hardware or physical issue. but purely due to intentional code limitation and suppression to make bitcoin look bad.

from 2009-2015 there has been a known number that bitcoin could handle upto ~4200tx (7tx/s) but with the inception of new bloated transaction formats the average tx size has increased. yet the block size buffer has not increased to compensate for increased adoption over the last 4 years
in april 2018 (AFTER the last price drama subsided) the average transaction size was ~500bytes. right now its more like 700bytes
meaning on average 40% less transaction count per block is getting confirmed
2009-2015 alot more transactions were around the 250byte area.
this alone shows that without even considering blockspace buffer, there are 200% less transactions atleast able to go through now than there were 4+years ago (byte for byte)

due to lack of any STRUCTURED fee mechanism there is no way to actually guarantee that paying X will get a tx confirmed in X blocks. so the current model even in its auction based mode is a failure where the mempool even with transactions paying a certain amount are left waiting far passed peoples estimates. because the fee model is based on guesses/estimates with no structure of assurance.

implementing a structured fee mechanism would actually help, it would take the guess work out of it, reduce the unassurances, and make people change their habits in regards to how they transact. all of which would help everyone from the users and the pools.

the fee structure, block limit and wishy washy code of unassurance is not due to 'blockchains are bad' or 'blockchains dont work' but due to developers making intentional decisions to avoid making positive changes. instead they just want blockchains to look bad to promote alternative networks for commercial gain and make ROI for the investors that paid their salaries

doomad + windfury

YAWN
now go learn about bitcoin.

meanwhile when core now are "THE REPO", "THE REFERENCE", "THE CORE" but when a dev says they can code a version. but then doesnt even bother. thus not even getting the other devs to ACK or nACK.. or even let the community get a chance to download. you cant then try pulling out stats that XXX are against it. especially when its not even all xxx actually code. majority are just document translators and grammar checkers

but 2 years later the same limited devs do write a version for 1mbsegwit. suddenly Mr doomad declares that its what the team wanted and what the community wanted.. even though the flip flops and stats and data show the community didnt want it and it only got activated due to apartheid tricks by a limited amount of people

anyway, doomad. go learn about bitcoin and if you dont like my comments this forum has an ignore button
the ignore button should be your friend because its obvious how ignorant you are about bitcoin and the community. as all you care about is core. the funniest part is that your social drama pokes against me just echo into "coz franky said" yet you dont realise that there are many many others that are not core loyalists. you have become so obsessed and so narrow minded that you actually think that i am a single point of attack. (hilarious)

so again for the multiple time on many topics. stop wasting your life on "things franky said" and start learning about bitcoin, start caring about bitcoin and not just core. actually take a break, relax, catch your breath and spend some time looking at the wider world and understand that "franky" is not a threat to you. then. once that has sunk in spend some more time learning about actual bitcoin

if the other party agree's to it yes
the 'collateral' of a channel does not have to be bitcoin.

remembr this simple fact.
when you set up a channel. that channel is NOT relayed around the network to have the community verify it.
its just a private agreement between you and someone else.

its how channls can be st up where the collateral is things like coinbase database balance (not a blockchain)
people can decide their own agreement of collateral

again you really need to start atleast using lightning and learning about it if you really want to get involved in conversations about it.
i still find it strange how you get involved in things you dont know or never used. its like you are just interested in the social drama you can cause.

please try learning about LN. and not the utopian perfect condition hype. but the actual usage and issues and limitations it comes with.

seems microlancer is sidestepping the LN flaws to only talk about LN in utopian conditions.
its similar to saying banks cannot be robbed because an ATM requires a card, pin number and has a $500 limit
(totally ignoring the big picture outside standard practical/utopian use of banking)


LN channel partners can agree to a channel without needing a locked bitcoin network transaction (CLTV)
its how turbo and factories are concepted
the unit of measure in a channel(HTLC) is MSats.
HTLC using Msats cannot be broadcast to bitcoins blockchain
Msats can represent any value. whether it be a calculated btc balance, a coinbase mysql fiat balance or a pre agreed private value between the 2 parties

LN is not a community protocol. it has no global consensus. users can set up thier own rules and protocols between themselves. this is why LN is so fluid with all the different things being tried out like eltoo, factories. because they can play around with things privately, in small groups, etc.

i can re-write my node to accept or decline whatever i like.

if you cared to do your research you would se it was them same 5 devs who pretended to be incompetent to not be able to do a 2mb+segwit days after signing, who later in 2017were the ones that caused the controversy in august 2017

plus the reason i dont want to spoonfeed you is because you have shown no talent, no interest in learning about bitcoin. so i wont waste my time on you. however, for other topics and other instances i have helped out others.
but as soon as they start derailing both topics and their own attitudes. i then give up helping them out and just tell them to do thir own research.

oh and by the way this forum has a search, github has a search, if you actually search for things related to bitcoin and not "franky" then you will get better results.
so try to learn about bitcoin and NOT ABOUT SOCIAL DRAMA

now go put your social drama crap aside and start learning about bitcoin.

example why i say DYOR
person A: mentions satoshi's whitepaper (something simple/subtle that anyone can research)
person B: goes on a social drama rant that A did not quote, explain and translate the whitepaper
person A: just tells person B to go research
person b: cries some more about how he wants A to explain things and to spoonfeed B
long story short. if your not interested in researching the whitepaper yourself, dont get involved with taking about it
if you cant stay uptodate with the currently available info. then take the time to update YOURSELF and dont expect others to coach you

"drag it out of me"
seriously DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH
i dont need nor care for merits.
i know you love being spoonfed info. but i am not a spoon holder
do your own research
if somebody mentions something, even subtly. RESEARCH IT. dont turn it into some social drama of how you want them to spoonfeed you stuff.
if you cant learn about bitcoin its your failure to learn not someone elses failure to teach

solar is not the cheapest. nor is it the most productive (night time restrictions on generation)
though compared to coal and oil it is cheaper.
there are other options too, mainly hydro has the best potential energy that can be utilised night and day, though not so independantly installable residentially due to lack of rivers/streams/creeks at each household.

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff
end of 2015 luke JR and chums talked about segwit.
saying how he could do it all soft and without splits

 and then a roundtable agreement was made for 2mb+segwit

then within a short time the core devs started pulling out by pretending they were powerless and unable to code anything
but by the time summer 2017 came around the 1mb segwit activation was done via a controversial hard fork that split the network(facepalm)
SERIOUSLY TRY RESEARCHING THIS STUFF!!!

as it seems all you wanna do is social drama replies.
please try to learn a thing or two about bitcoin and not be so obsessed with social drama

doomad
now your meandering further off topic as usual by questioning small subtle points to try moving the conversation into nonsense. but to get to your point should you desire to do some research it was about the 2015 2mb+segwit (not the 2017 NYA)
early 2016 core devs pulled out of the 2mb+segwit agreement. but then went on and pulled their tricks to get 1mb segwit activated.

you may find out about it should you research
Hint: luke Jr

im guessing your still watching the 1980's tv adverts for oxfam Ethiopia with natives topless living in shacks
.. heres an update


im guessing your still watching the 1980's propaganda for china where its just rice paddy fields
.. heres an update