oh as for asking you to run scenarios. if your rebuttle for refusing to use testnet is lack of nodes (i was being helpful by suggesting testnet so you dont lose real value) you can do it on mainnet. but dont blame me for risking your funds.. or you can grab some paper and a pen and run scenarios using ink and imagination. that way you can quantify as many nodes as you like by simply drawing lines and dots. thus able to run many scenarios without needing to load up thousands of physical nodes just to test things.
so instead of using insults and excuses to avoid running scenarios.. just do it. run some scenarios.

even without mentioning all the diffrent malicious ways to scam people out of funds. there are also no guarantees of paying a recipient. because it relies on everyone in a route to agree.. and everyone in the route to have funding

emphasis again: run some scenarios. dont reply with insults and excuses to explain your avoidance of running scenarios
here ill start you off with a non technical scenario about lack of of just a couple nodes can ruin it for dozens.. or lack of funding of 4 chanels can ruin it for 100 people.
and yes no testnet or main net coins will be used.. just drawings an imagination.. even you should manage to achieve this..


take a 100 node scenario. where each node only had upto 4 channels.
seems someone done one here

imagine each line as a channel where the line is represented as [0.01 <> 0.01] or [$80 <> $80] .. whichever is easy for you

now pretend you are node  number 90(top left)
meaning you have $320 in LN separated as $80 in the 4 chanels and your channel partner and thir partnrs do the same
and you want to pay number 54 (near middle)
how many hops would you need to go through to get to it.
ill save you time.. best routes available have minimum of 8 hops..


yes there are many many routes of 8 hops..
sticking with all of the routes of just 8 hops imagine just 53, 64 made a payment to 54 of $50 an hour ago...

and then run scenarios where you know you have $320 in total of your 4 channels.. and you want to pay number 54 $160
using just the 8 hop routes... oh look you cant
mhm.. you got $320 but you cant pay a person $160 in 8 hops even though you personally have $160 value in those routes
and there are many routes of 8 hops. .. all due to 2 nodes beign either offline or insufficiently funded.


 so next viable route is 10 hops.. imagine that 53,64,55,44 are not sufficiently funded or some are offline.

yes there are many many more routes to it
also think about scenario where node 80 and 91 went offline. and how that would change things.

play around with scenarios like above.

---

then realise the scenarios above are for just 100 participants..

now imagine there were 1000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds

now imagine there were 10,000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds
 
now imagine there were 100,000 nodes. how many hops would be needed to get from the top corner to a node in the center.
how many extra channels would a node need to decrease the amount of hops thus decrease the amount of risk of a route not having funds

---

now imagine a network of only 100,000 people.
again thinking about the number of channels needed to decrease the hops required risk.
but then the amount of funds a node has deposited in total (add up the channel funds by th number of channels)

and start to see the other problems of the balance between hop risk and hub risk

dooMad. do you even read the quotes you grabbed as your defense.
read them properly. maybe read them 3 times. look at how they gloss over the issues.
EG
you keep trying to flip the cons into pro's by thinking the world is innocent and will not use a loop hole to get free coins. thats your utopian mindset and not realistic mindset at work.
in a good secure system neither innocent or malicious people should be able to use a loop hole.

as for saying no one should voice an opinion. and its none of anyones business.. sorry but. thats just letting bitcoin stagnate or get twisted into centralisation by just sticking head in the sand and not voicing an opinion..
im guessing your the type that never votes at elections and think no one should vote apart from senators and corporations

anyway

take the bit where you quoted
"The most important difference in my view is that, unlike banks, LN hubs don’t hold your money. Your money is stored in a channel, anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, and only you can authorize its movement. In any case that the channel counterparty refuses to cooperate, due to malice or incompetence, you can unilaterally close the channel and receive the money back as normal bitcoins."

read it 3 times.. can you see the flaws and loop holes?? .. if you cant, thats your problem not mine

maybe its best you dont get involved in advertising LN as bitcoins sole utopian solution.
because if you cant see the flaws. then you either have not used LN to notice it. or you dont care about bitcoin and just want to pump LN as the only innovation of the future

insult me all you like but you are just digging your head in the sand saying it will be alright in the end is just what they want you to do.

your the type of person thats now of the mindset of:
'if you dont like bitcoin becoming centralised/stagnant and commercialed, shut up and F**k off to an altcoin

sorry but the bitcoin community need to know the stuff beyond the glossy commercial leaflets pretending to be open. to see what bitcoin is actually turned into and what the devs are pushing users into.
if you cared about bitcoin you would not be telling people to shut up and put their head in the sand

when regulators ask businesses to KYC a customer. this is not about governments then getting peoples ID.
as coinbase provd. it was regulated already but then when the IRS wanted customers ID, coinbase said no.. which shows that governments do not get the peoples ID as standard regulation process(otherewis IRS would already have had customers details)

regulations are not about consumer confidence or insurance. as the banking sector has proven in 2008 when many mortgage companies and banks screwed over mortgage holders, even though the banks/mortgage companies were regulated.

what regulations are is simply this:
governments ask BUSINESSES to police its own customers. and if laundering occurs. to avoid the regulated business getting in troubl the business has to hand over data of a culprit. thus the business is cleared of wrong doing and wont be held accountable.
businesses are not even allowed/suppose to stop the movements of funds or inform the customer that the customer is under investigation. thus its not helpful to real hoonest customers that may make a mistake(if you dont know u done wrong you cant put it right or explain the reason to avoid things going further).

the ID grabbing is just something a business meant to hold secure and not use for any purpose but to use if/when a customer is flagged by the businesses own constructed policy(yes the business has to make its own policing guidelines)

ICO's that have no licence should not be demanding sensitive information without proof/reasoning of legal requirement.. especially now since the data protection laws update
..
what we as a crypto community should be doing is not get excited about regulation. not lobby for regulation. as none of it helps us. instead what we should be lobbying for is consumer protection. where by we can report dodgy businesses and also dodgy customers of a business whereby the dodgy customer could negatively affect other customers. and where we do get the insurances and protections we need. where giving our ID's empowers us to then have a case against the business because they have our details.

bitcoin cash is august 2017
"gigabytes by midnight" reddit propaganda has been going on since 2014-2015.. and has been show as propaganda because no implementation that wanted to run on the main net or as a altcoin competitor ever even said gigabytes.. the actual REAL debate was 2mb. and that was a compromise from 8mb. but the core supporters who wanted to REKT any core opposition so it was th core fanboys who were the ones screaming gigabytes by midnight. to drown out the real proposals

again bitcoin cash is august 2017
but any attempt to offer anything else that is deemed as a full validationa and archival node to run on the mainnet and offer an alternative got met with and treated as an attack.
yea Luke JR pretends his client is an independant second free choice of a full validation archival node.. but the hint is in the name of the creator that its still part of the core roadmap..

so tell me one full validation, full archival node solution that runs on mainnet where none of the devs are funded by the same investors as core... and where the nod has its own 'proposals'program that do not sheep cores.
show me the freedom of choice.



gotta laugh that you think raising the blocksiz is impossible..  oh and by the way there are multiple other ways of scaling up the mainnet without losing peoples independant control of their funding, emphasis sacraficing their independant control for convenience, which is only caused by innnovation stagnation to require such sacrifice

and something we do agree on.. not al 7 billion people will use bitcoin. and not all will use it 5-10 times a day
which is another laughing point about th core fanboys screaming gigabyts by midnight because the real debate has never been about a be-all-for everyone coin by midnight...
a one world single currency is worse than fiat
people in reality dont do 5-10 transactions a day.
my mindset is about growth and SCALING. (you know progress over time) to kep bitcoin innovative and feature rich compared to other coins
not halting because something cant happen in 5 hours so it should never happen, to then push people away from using bitcoin

and the other point about the whales.. yep we can both agree those circling around the core team with deep pockets are whales and yes they do have power over the devs to not sway them off th commercial direction the devs have taken since 2013.

.. now.. here is something you dont realise
if people advertised LN in the same mindset as advertising other offchain gateways. where they HIGHLIGHT thats its not the real 100% control technology revolution of 2009-2013, but just a side service for those that need it, but willing to sacrifrce the bitcoin ideology for convenience..
if people then admit they hate it that devs have said btc is broke and cant scale. and instead think.. well maybe that dev is not the one to do it because he might have an agenda
if people actually cared more about the mainnet/ethos/revolution of bitcoin.. and not be defending a certain team of PEOPLE..
then my comments would be completely different.

first of all. i am not advertising bitcoin cash. thats the redit narrowmindset of if you hate how devs have stiffled and ignored the bitcoin community then you must be group X

i hate the devs because they have stiffled bitcoin core network innovation, ethos, revolution of 20109-2013.
they have not been open to having other teams as reference clients on bitcoins mainnet. hense why i now deem it as the core network because only core want to OWN IT. and all other teams that want to use the network and come up with their own innovations are deemed as attackers of core..
this does not mean i love or want bitcoin cash. this means i hate what bitcoin core network has stagnated into.




you say layer 0 must not change.. dang you either have no clue or you know exactly the commercial advantage of why layer zero has not changed
there are many manyways to innovate the mainnet and scale it up. the devs have ignored it all because they have a over $100m financial burden to push people into using commercial services so that they can repay their investors.
.. oh wait. you thought the devs that invented segwit and LN got paid fia sponsorship/donations.. nope. it was done via investor contracts wher investors hope for returns... now think how can a paid core dev repay their investors if core doesnt sell anything.
the answer is to stifle the core network to pus people into services where investors can make money. think about it(with a critical mind not a core kiss ass defender hat)



as for your 'its delusional'.
kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data every 10 minutes.. then you should 'do a kodak', but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA games that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

firstly you have not used LN.. thats obvious
secondly. in bitcoin you need to push funds to a scammer, so many people will say its the victims fault for not doing due dilegance.
in LN. there are MULTIPLE ways to tap away at someones funds without even having to be a channel partner. and without the victim needing to manually decide to make a payment to someone they dont know.

the LN devs themselves have said there are risks of losing funds.. yes the devs themselves.


you do not have 100% signing authority over btc in LN.. with banks you dont either. even if you think its just you signing a cheque, thee banks can refuse to authorise the cheque(refuse to sign their part you dont see). you also need to pre fund a ledger entry that is co managed.. for LN and banks. unlike onchain where you can push the funds to anywhere you please without needing to find the right routing system (americans call banking system routing numbers.(if thats not enough of a hint). uk calls it sort-code..

right now LN devs are concepting factories (fortknox) and channel managers for when your asleep or offline
..
it might be worth you stop reading reddit and start using LN, and not under the selctively find the merchant you want and only fund $3 to make a one time $3 payment.. but a more realistic deposit a months salary of testnet coins and then try finding 84 mrchants and try paying them randomly over 2 months.(more realsitic to real life scenario)


you are wrong.
CLTV means the funds are not spendable for a certain time even after confirmation onchain EG 3-5 days (ELI-5 like mined coins 100block maturity)
and CSV is where by your counterpart can show a signature and take the funds from you (chargeback) in that unmatured timeframe

again learn LN

seems your stuck at th now 2 year old glossy leaflet utopia image of LN..
maybe you need to start from scratch.. learn things like auto-pilot, factories, managed channels.. but maybe first start with multisig. because it sounds like you dont even know what a multisig requires.


you might want to check your research.. factories(fortknox).. where funds are locked and then allow you to fund channels from the factory. when you close channels you dont settle/unlock to blockchain freeing them up back to your sole control.. . but it just updates the factory 'balance' and then you just use the balance to set up new channels if you have funds available in the factory to do so. thus keeping the funds locked into LN
again do some research.


stop hyping up stuff you have not used or not researched. and then insulting people that have used it and are purely not going to just toe the party line of kissing ass and screaming utopia is near..
the worse type of people are thos that scream everything is great and perfect. as they are the ones in dream land. its better to be open and honest and admit there are issues then promote something broken as if its utopia


funny part is. i have highlighted issus about segwit a couple years ago and the devs after fighting their utopian mantra, eventually twisted their own words and gameplan to then work around the issues i mentioned ..
ask the devs why they didnt release segwit address/wallet utility until way after segwit activation.. then look back to 2016 and my gripes about 'anyonecanspend'

as for lightning some devs have reacted to what i have said and changed their game plan and adjusted a few things..
even now they are arguing about a few things.. right now they have just realised that a few opcodes thee added has rintroduced malleability.. i am laughing mega hard at that.

but what i do find completely irrelevant is people who advertise LN as the bitcoin solution.. especially those saying its great, perfect, the thing bitcoin really needs. even though its obvious those propagandists have not even usd it, let alone researched it.

when its not a feature just for bitcoin. not something that all users will need and for those that dont need it, those non LN users are still stuck. meaning bitcoins issues have not been solved.
by this i mean its not advantageous for people who are not daily spenders or have a good continual 100% guaranteed routeS to all their merchants as and when needed to trust thier funds in channels for lengthy periods


maybe you should use it under real life scenario with a critical mindset, put a blackhat on and act as if you are more interested in finding the holes in it to fix it, then you might get something positive.. instead of pretending its utopia already yet not even used or researched it.. as thats you wasting your keystrookes

have a nice day
and dont reply until you have used it for more then one selective test purchase.
run proper scenarios, research the concepts look at the features. and you will start to see

OMG..
lets address the last point first.
in LN YOU DO NOT have full control over your bitcoins.. LEARN MULTISIG
it requires signatures of more than one person. atleast learn that as a basic first lesson.

now. lets go back to th first point

LN is not a service to scale "the network"(you are talking about bitcoin).. LN is a separate service network all on its own. LN is to allow many different coins to use this separate service network so they are no longer using the blockchain of many coins.
its got nothing to do with "scaling bitcoin" its about diverting people away from using bitcoins mainnet.
EG its not a highway that needs an extra lane and LN is that extra lane.
LN is telling people to get off the highway and use a country road along side farm trucks and pedestrians(othercoins). thus the highway doesnt get its extra lane

lol laugh at ur subtle attempt to bring bitcoincash into the conversation.. but guess what. i care about bitcoin cores issues. not the drama of other coins.
but that said if dogecoin had cheaper fee's and had same listings on merchant shopping cart tools and exchanges and had a faster blocktime thn core, cash, ltc, ether or any coin..  yes people would move to dogecoin..

back to concentrating on the core network
if LN was designed to only interact with bitcoin cores network. then it would help. but. the reality by making cores mainnet innovation stall and become expensive and be screamed by devs as unscalable. people wont want to return to cores mainnt due to costs of doing so.
would you redeem your btc if it cost you $1-$26.. or would you redeem LTC costing 1c-5c. knowing your just going to deposit coin back into LN later so want to avoid costs as much as possible EG 5c settle 5c reopen new channel.. vs $1 settle $1 open new channel

lets word it this way. if you are to lock up coin into a co-managed fund (bank) and then separately you play around with receipts where the sharable units of measure are different..which are unconfirmed, unaudited and have punishments and issues that can prevent settling back to coin. are you still playing with coin
EG deposit 1000 sats.. play with tx's measured as 1,000,000millisats that require channel co-partner to authorise with you

if you are to lock up gold into a co-managed fund (bank) and then separately you play around with banknotes where the sharable units of measure are different..which are unconfirmed, unaudited and have punishments and issues that can prevent settling back to gold. are you still playing with gold
EG deposit 1oz gold.. play with banknote measured as redemable for 31grams of gold that require bank manager to authorise with you

if it costs more to redeem your gold(bitcoin) than it does to convert it to silver(litecoin) where silver is just as acceptable by exchanges, merchants and others. people end up moving to silver. thus the bank (channel co-partner) keeps the gold(bitcoin)

cant you even see that its a way to lock bitcoin up and make it hard to get your bitcoin back due to mainnet issues
have you even used LN and run real life scenarios, have you done any maths, have you even rad the issues the devs themselves are screaming about.. or have you just read the pumped up hype on reddit by those that havnt done any research/scenarios,  

think outside th core box, without a utopian hat. put on a critical hat and do some proper thinking

sorry but A and B counter-argue each other.
if there is only one mona lisa.. you cannot divide mona lisa. so mona lisa is scarce/rare
but if there are 2.1quadrillion sharable units and if LN patches get their way into mainnet bips. there will be 2.1 quintillion sharable units of bitcoin

e. cannot be counterfeitted... hmm well many people were crying about the bitcoincash drama as a counterfeit. and its easy to fork a chain that uses the same address prefixes. lets not also forget the number of exchanges that syphon out real coins while letting people play around with exchange mysql balances thinking they are trading real coins..oh and the ETF's that make people think they are investing in bitcoin when infact they are just investing in shares of a company.



1. fiats intrinsic value backing is actually national minimum wage. and laws.. not precisely goverment trust. but more about knowing £10 $10 was about a minimum of 1 hour 20minuts of minial labour
2. bitcoins intrinsic value is mainly the mining costs.. if you quantify it.. same as gold.. if it only cost $1 to mine it. th value would be far less
  what peter could have said is bitcoin has not tangible value... unlike gold
3.agreed as explained above in point A-B
4.nothing on the planet has a certainty of value. but if you brush away the hype/spculative PRICE of ATH and concentrate on the ATL(all time low) of a lengthy period. you can then (as pointed out in point 1) see that there is an underlying intrinsic value made up by the cost of obtaining it. because people are not stupid to sell it at a loss. price and value are 2 separate things

1.lightning is not a feature of bitcoin. its a separate service that many coin can use. so MANY coins will get the same advantage thus not bring any hype to bitcoin alone

2. if the other coins that use LN have less fee and more tx/s onchain. then people will prefer to settle to those coins. especially if those coins are listen on the same exchanges and able to be used by the same merchant shopping cart tools

3. lightning is not a solve all solution for every usecase. it only works well for prepayment of known future spending. EG predepositing enough funds for the next month of spending where you will need to do more then a couple transactions per month. most real world spenders only use their debit cards 1-2 times a day and vary where they will spend each day. thus its only useful for things like
google adsense partners, exchanges reserves swaps and users who buy giftcards to cover a months spending..
where as randomly spending funds here there and everywhere is not straight forward, or plannable when it comes to the fund locks.

due to LN limitations of usecases and the fact that other coins will use LN.. devs need to stop stalling bitcoins onchain innovation to then only add features relevant for LN. and get back to innovating bitcoin onchain features for thos that cant/wont and will not need LN.

when you se dvs use "reserve currency" instead of cash..
when you see devs use weight instead of tx/s
when you see devs mntion locking funds

the subliminal message is bitcoin is gold and payments are expensively heavy, so needs to be locked into fortknox and then play around with unaudited unconfirmed receipts.. much like victorian banks which then screwed people over by not letting them have their gold back later on. think about how this so called bitcoin revolution has been lost. and has now become just another repeat of the old re-banking structure...
just try to send a payment without another parrty co-authorising your request and see how far you get on LN.. you will soon see how the revolution has been lost

i know i know.. im prepared for the onslaught of fiat lovrs that just want hype to get btc to a exit fee they like so they can run baack to fiat.. but that was not why bitcoin was inventd. and if bitcooin uses all its ethos and advantages over othr payment systems/networks/ciurrncies. the bitcoins exit price wont be as dramatic. so it actually is worth it to fiat lovers to try lobbying devs to go back to the drawing board and start re-innovating bitcoins onchain feature with things only bitcoin can do that othr coins cant. and do them cheaper onchain. to keep bitcoin in first place

bitcoin devs have given up fixing bitcoin issues and pretty much unanimously declared bitcoins blockchain as broke(unscalable)
and so they are now declaring bitcoin as not peer to peer cash. but as a reserve whereby the blockchain becomes a locked fortknox vault for LN and people end up moving value via unconfirmed unaudied receipts of value on the LN network

only issue is LN is not a unique network just for bitcoin value. but will be open to all other values too. so eventually people wont want to settle back to bitcoins but to other chains that are cheaper fee and faster confirms.. and if they want to settle back to bitcoin there is no actual 100% guarantee they will be able to for full value without delay/restrictions/agreement by counterparty/punishment

yep bitcoin can actually scale. but devs want people to lock value into managed accounts. and charge fee's and penalties for the honour of co-managing the account(channel).
much like what happened to gold when bankers came along with paper money.

if people cannot see the issues with this. then they only care about a fiat exit price and not a bitcoin viable currency without middlemen.
remember even when bank notes said it would give a holder X amount of gold.. they were not actually holding gold. same will be said in a few years when people are trading LN payments

seems no one has learned the lessons of 100 years ago.

you do realise that the core team have just introduced new op codes. and some of those opcodes WILL make transactions malleable again..
so i do laugh at the malleability defense.

that is where you are wrong
there is still a legacy limit of 1mb.
although they have twistd it around and hidden it you will never be able to have more than 1mb of legacy transactions..
and also the Segwit transactions partially sit in this same still 1mb existant area. meaning there is a limit to how many segwit transactions too.

there has been 0% legacy increase of limit
2.1x  potential of segwit.. but only 1.1mb has ben the average increase

yep they say 4mb but actual utility of transactions per block will not be 4x

might be worth you reading code. with all their 4x fudging the numbers to hide the 1mb
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h#L13

heres a hint.. there would be no need for scale factors or other variables revolve around 4x or a quarter of.... if 1mb was irrelevant
think about it 4mb/4=??

also the stats about segwit is not 20-30%
read the small print of the stats page you got that from
a transaction of many LEGACY inputs but only 1 segwit input. is treated (wrongly) as a segwit tx.

meaning
if i had a tx of thoudands of legacy inputs and only 1 segwit input.
the stats page will call it a segwit tx.. BUT you will not see 2001 signatures in the "weight" area.. you will only see 1 signature in the weight area

total funds. meaningless. one dude could set up 2 nodes and channel between him and.. himself. fund that channel with any amount..
but thos funds are not what the community get to touch or use.

also do some maths. or check the stats. each channel is about 0.001 meaning if i sent a payment that routed through all the channels of 0.001.  then move their 0.001 out of their control in that direction. meaning if anyone else wanted to follow in a similar direction route. the channels wont be able to.

from this
me [0.001 <> 0.000] A [0.001 <> 0.000] B [0.001 <> 0.000] C [0.001 <> 0.000] D [0.001 <> 0.000] E [0.001 <> 0.000] F
to this
me [0.000 <> 0.001] A [0.000 <> 0.001] B [0.000 <> 0.001] C [0.000 <> 0.001] D [0.000 <> 0.001] E [0.000 <> 0.001]  F

A can no longer pay any other alphabet person
now imagine you joined A and wanted to pay F... YOU CANT..
take note.. even in the "from this" start point. although there is 0.006 ntwork capacity.. NO ONE can send more than 0.001.. and once 'me' has spend just 0.001 to F... (well ill emphasise it again)
A, B, C,D,E  CANNOT PAY F anything!


also. do the 'degrees of separation' maths
if 5 people. know 4 DIFFERENT people(meaning 5 channels but 4 new people as one is linked to the parent).. who know 4 DIFFERENT people and so on.
5
20
80
320
1280
5120
20480
in 6 hops you reach a capacity of ~20k people.. but only one route to get from one end of the network to the other

now if you have 5 channels but they are not all to new unique people. but aswell as using a channel to backchannel to the parent. one of the 5 channels is also connected to soneone else . thus allowing for 2 routes somewhere in the network
5
15
45
135
405
1215
3645
10935

in 7 hops you reach a capacity of ~11k people.. but only maybe 2 routes to get from one end of the network to the other

this is somthing people can do without even using LN. use some paper and pen and draw dots and lines.. doing on graphics/doodling apps. if you prefer to do the math instead of image format.. then do it on excel.
you will see the limitations

people really should run scenarios. use it. or think about it.. rather then promote it as the unlimited flawless solution without understanding its real utility limitations.

i am someone that truly cares more about it then you do..
and thats because im not afraid to speak the truth of the bad parts. because highlightling the bad makes people aware of what needs to be done.

unlike some who say bitcoin is utopia. then when a fault is found .. bitcoin is utopia but you need clouded fortknox network because utopia is limited.
its only limited because greedy paid devs decided to keep limits

i would truly hate to live your life of floppy disk storage because your words are only a few kb's each and you cannot se passed your own nose to see that having extra BUFFER is helpful.
as for spam. that actually can be controlled.
as for fee's that can be controled to
as for validating/processing speed of tx's and blocks that too can be controlled.

but ull just say nah. let the devs stifle bitcoin and try getting people to use LN. even though LN has flaws, limitations and doesnt cover all usecases.

P.S
if you think bitcoin does not need to scale.. guess what..then i do not want to see you ever promote LN.. becasue ur saying LN is not needed
if you say bitcoin needs LN then your saying bitcoin needs to scale..
(yes you dug yourself a hole.. you cant have it both ways.. so man up.. admit bitcoin needs to scale or LN is not needed)

if you think bitcoin cant scale then you are saying you dont like bitcoin
if you prefer people to lock up value. play around offchain and then grab their value on a diferent network.. then you again are saying you dont lik bitcoin.

i do not hate bitcoin. i hate the core devs(the paid bully devs) that have truly ruined bitcoins ethos and unless those devs are not sorted out. then i will keep on telling the harsh truths that need to be told. i am not gonna sell people down a one way road to LN(banker street)

and i can guarantee you 99% of those selling LN as the solution have never even used it. nor have they even bothered to research it to even know what many devs who are programing it are saying about it

i can guarantee you that anyone hyping up LN as a bitcoin solution has never actually usd LN..

even the LN devs are trying to get people to stop hyping the utopian falacy..
LN has limitations. faults, risks

its design is that of the gold industry.. lock gold in vaults and play with unaudited uncontrolled receipts of value.

LN is to be used for multiple coins.

which people will eventually when they wake up to the fact that bitcoin devs have been screaming that they have halted bitcoin main net scaling and said bitcoin cant scale. the users will end up settling to alternate coins that are easier cheaper and faster to settle to.

LN wont make bitcoin better because LN has already stalled bitcoin progress.
devs have given up scaling mainnet. and now they are stupidly wanting to scale down mainnet with lots of extra bytes for silly transaction formats that reduce tx/block averages.

well everyone is a millionaire
convert $1 into zimbabwe and youll get over 1million zimbabwe dollars

but in short, own over 135btc and you will have U.S$1mill

the creator was doing a comparison.. he even pointed out numbers and points of interest.. he used those points to then point to some prediction point..

if you are to say that the info graphic should just have a random squiggle and then have some random number of no bases at all.. guess what.. its then not a "infographic"

so i was just pointing out the point the infographic was trying to make was not making a point. because it missed the point by not using the points.

whats the point in making a point using points if its then pointed out that those points dont infact reach the same point.. do you see my point.

emphasis on point

infographic is not thought out well

firstly. golds preETF ATH was $24k  ATL 10k    post ETF ATH $60k  (rounded)
pre-ATH to post-ATH = 225%
ATL to post-ATH =600%

so lets take bitcoins $20k ATH X225% =$45k next ATH... not $62k
so lets use bitcoins $7500.. x 600% = $45k... not 62k


so just based on numbers.. the estimates should be for  bitcoin ~$45k not $62k.. math is simple

then what needs to be taken into account is that gold had a gold rush of "gold for cash" retailers/services.. which pushed prices. unless bitcoin is going to have loads of ATM's  of taking in bitcoin to then publish an increase in 'spot' price..  you wont see the same inpact.
gold has a more complicated multilayer mechanism of what impacts golds prices.. but unless bitcoin had th same access and more aggressive middlemen control of the spread to push the price up.. we wont see the same pattern

the info graphic did not convey any understanding on the aspects of what caused golds surge post 2003
and yet the info graphic STUPIDLY over hyped the impact of an ETF on bitcoin to somthing far more than ETF affect on gold

there are bots.

there have been many posts been reporting because they are simply copy and paste comments from either other posts of the topic or information copied straight from a google search.

the merit system seemed to have quietened down the one line spammers who just want to get post counts on their dozens of alternate-accounts but now you see these alt accounts just copying info from wiki/google, without even bothering to re-interpretting the words into their own words.

solutions:
if you see comments that look like a copy and paste job. which some deem as plagiarism report it
if you are an advertiser wanting users to advertise your service.
      be more active in vetting who you let advertise. make it harder to qualify.
      check their post history better
      dont be afraid to say no to obvious spammers, plagiarists. then those who make bots with dozens of accounts realise they have to change

i think that the forum should go back to multi tiered. where beginners are stuck in a beginners section until they have reached a certain level.
and have another level ontop of the general area. where by those with higher standing/longevity/content can discuss things without the nonsense of newbies that have come straight from reddit with biased mindsets and looking to make money via spamming/copying content

going back a few millenia.. people followed kings and barons.. back then they knew about evolution of caveman to human
the story of adam and eve was a meander of explaining how the thyroid gland (apple shaped gland in the neck) which we call the adams apple makes the differeince between a cretin(dumb passive-aggressive entity with physical deformaties) to become civilised problem solving smart healthier entity..

move forward a couple millenia..
people follow kings and government. but know less about evolution. some think we are born from energy of the universe or made from devine beings made in our image.. even hitler had his armies re educating the world about the function of the thyroid gland with all his experiments. even now people dont realise the flouride, chloride, bromide impact the thyroid gland and happily accept poisoning ourselves with flouride water and chlorinatd chicken ecause our kings and governments say its good for us.

as for relationships
(note: i love sex and would never had held out till after marriage, and im agnostic. but im well researched )
100 years ago many people waited to have sex after marriage or 'courted' for months before getting laid. now with tinder and other dating apps,its all one night stands and aids,crabs, and lots of different fluid excretions due to it. so again we have took a step backwards in terms of being civilised.
aids, one night stands, STI's, children of single parents(bastards) has gone full circle. again millenia ago they knew about aids, gays, random sex, deadbeat dads and made laws(the bible is just a lawbook/campfires stories to teach the uneducated in a way they could understand about evolution) which meant to have originally taught people of evolution and having safe sex, but ended up lost in transation where its now thought as a religion where the stories have and will continue to change


things like street lights. did you know the first street light was invented in the middle east a millenia ago.. but that same regions is now left as rubble and treated like cave dwelling savages(if you watch fox news(note sarcasm))

if you think we are free from the kings and barons taxes and higway robberies..we are not.
taxes still continue. and border police very often seize funds for no reason than it being over $10k. or fine people just for parking on what amounts to be nothing more then a yellow line paintd on the edge of a road.

technology
even as far back as cavemen. we have always been looking to make tools to make our lives easier, faster, more efficient, to then be more lazy. so yes although technology moves forwards civilisation and the pursuit to find tools to do things for us has not changed so we have not even after thousands of millenia got to a point where everything is provided for us and we need nothing more.

in finance
in crypto, the new kings are the developers. setting the rules making changes mandatory or soft trojan without civilised conensus. and the barons(tax collectors) are the pools and offchain hubs. we foolishly belive our king developers that this new technology of independant PUSH payments cant work and the next generation of tech is to go back to lockng value into vaults and then just passing around unconfirmed unaudited receipts where there is a requirement of other people signing accepting alongside us.
so finaance is just full circling /unchanged. even though the medium has changed. then end result has just gone full circle

summary.
yes the method has changed over the millenia. but civilisation is still the same. it just goes in circles we learn something. go along with it for a few generations, the next generation get bored/revolt/want soemthing new. a new method is tried, the old method is forgotten or twisted into 'tales' /stories where the message is mis-translated. another generation passes and get bored, changes. and eventually the underlying path goes back to the first path.. a cycle that just goes around repeating and repeating.