you think buffet keeps fiat?
no. he manages other peoples fiat in accounts where that fiat is insured and he skims 1 share for every 100 shars his client purchase.
he then sells those shares for proper assets.

you will not find bank notes under his pillow.
also to add,, if fiat hyper inflates many bitcoiners will see their $6k price(call it 5k loaves of bread value) jump to $12k price (but still only buys 5k of bread) and everyone will be rushing to sell bitcoin for fiat as if they are winners.. yet when they go shopping with thier fiat. realise they are no better off

thats why i dont care about fiat valuations anymore. because OMG bitcoin is worth quadillions of zimbabwe dollar

my pc has bitcoin that values against the cost of living. not fiat. .. and thats the way i prefer it

as for warren buffets 2018 comment..

it was a retort of somone elses claim that bitcoin is rat poison..well honestly it is..  you just have to ask yourself who are the rats
(hint: wall street and londons square mile call fiat trading lifestyle 'a rat race')
thus rat poison will kill the fiat rats

also the original guy said rat poison when the price was 100...   warren was questioned when the price was $10k

so ratpoison squared is $100²
easy math 100*100=$10k

so even the addon warren made about 'squared' is correct too..
but neither rat poison nor rat poison squared is considered negative. if you really think about it

i smell the old "bitcoinpro" user https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=16327 has returned yet again..

big P.S
an ETF is not a bitcoin exchange.
its a COMPANY who are selling SHARES for FIAT. and simply BETTING thee value of the shares against a lump of btc.

by having an ETF investors are not buying bitcoin. they are buying and selling shares.. thee BTC in the trust never move, never change.

at current coding. core and cash accepts anything below consensus.h limit.. and then core freely allows the mining pool to make the blocks bigger than policy which will still be acceptable to core as long as the new blocksize stays under consensus (meaning to non-mining nodes) policy is meaningless to core users as its something pools decide solely by themselves

however take bitcoin unlimiteds proposal a few years back (core rejected it) where by the policy.h becomes somthing non-mining nodes vote on by having s a value in their node identity and then mining pools only move forward making bigger blocks if a high percentage of nodes wave a flag to say its ok to do so.. they said it was a bad voting mechanism

kind of funny that devs that said no to it.. becasue it was them same devs that actually then went on to beg users to put "nosegwitx2" or "yesUASF"  in their identifier to see how many people wanted the core roadmap. they even promoted people put it into thier twitter usernames and other non-code social stuff such as 'buy a UASF hat and take a picture on social media and get people to share it'.. (facepalm)

devs love their social drama campaigns but try to avoid code voting (avoided consensus upgrade and done the 3shell trick of a MANDATORY bilateral split) which they thought was OK because all the social media and social identifiers said it was ok (facepalm)

"just route it around"
thats called broadcasting to mainnet to get your funds out of the channel you have with the hub.
you[$30-$30]hub[$30-30]destination                          mainnet: you[$0]
you[settledmainnet]hub[$30-30]destination                 mainnet: you[$30]

and then making another mainnet tx to put funds into a new channel with another party to hop your payments without a hub involved

you[$0-$30]hop[$30-30]hop[$30-$30]destination         mainnet: you[$30]
you[$30-$30]hop[$30-30]hop[$30-$30]destination         mainnet: you[$0]

and ofcourse.. hope the HOP your now channeled to also are not upto the same hijynx as the hub was

anyway moving forward a few concepts..
new invention.  factory.. lets call it LN fortknox.. (idea is to put funds into factories so you dont ned to settle to mainnet because your initial funding channel funding is not from your own mainnet tx. but from your mainnet funding going to fortknox an they pay your channel partner who then pays you)

you put funds into LNfortknox. and lock it up for 2 years. you then set up a channel with a well funded hub whereby you dont put funds in. and fortknox then routes a payment to the hub via their relationship and the hub sets up the initial TX to give you part of their funds
EG
instead of
you[$30 - $30]hub where that $30 is your own value you lockd in from your own mainnet tx..
its like this
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK where the $30in in FK is your own value you locked into fortknox. the hubs $60 is the hbs UTXO (that he will have to settle)
and then this happens
you[$0 - $60]hub[$30 - $0]FK
you[$30 - $30]hub[$30 - $0]FK

now you have $30. but its not using your own initial UTXO you owned locked into the hub chnnel. the funds are a share of hubs initial $60 UTXO
your UTXO is locked in fortknox(factory)

moving on say your sick of hub and you want to move funds to hub2. and your new id Utu(you2)
.. now to get out of a channel you can do it without caring about rbroadcasting to mainnet. you make a payment back to fortknox and tell fortknox where you want to put that payment. so lts start with how it looks befor you dcid to leave the channel

you[$30 - $30]hub[$30 - $0]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
so
you[$0 - $60]hub[$30 - $0]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$0 - $30]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$0 - $30]hub2[$30 - $30]Uto

now you have your funds in a new channel and dont care about the old channel bcause your mainnet UTXO is not lockd to that initial hub channel. so  you can forget about it and leave the hub with the problem of settling out their balance

but.. heres the rub, although you think you have less worry about closing a channel becaus your iinitial UTXO is not locke to that hub...you still have to get the hub to agree to pass the $30 out. meaning
at the state
you[$30 - $30]hub[$30 - $0]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto

if they are playing hijinks they can still hold funds to ransom. by refusing to sign your $30 back out of channel
also.. hub can spend the $30 the hub has with fortknox.. meaning the hub then has no value left in hub-fk to then pay to fortknox to then allow you get fortknox to rout your $30 to a new channel all offchain EG
you[$30 - $30]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
as you can see hub spend it for hubs coffee. but now even if you give hub the $30 in you-hub..  hub cant then give another $30 to FK because hub-FK has $0 hub balance to do so

meeaning your again stuck with having to broadcast out the you-hub tx to mainnet. which hub could treat as an unsanctioned event and invoke a punishment

in short. if hijinks is occuring and even if you think using a factory will help reduce the amount of times you need to close a channel via mainnet settlemnt.. the end result is your still at the same risk of needing to settle to mainnet to get your $30 out of a hub is upto hijinks.

P.S there are far more vulnerabilities/ransoms/blackmail/hijinks risks that i can describe. but yea tryin to close a channel is not just a easy ok, done in 0.002 seconds no issues. the reason, even with factories.. well thats simple. DUAL AUTHORISATION RQUIRED every time. LN is not a simple single party push payment system so if the other party messes around. your stuck and may end up paying the cost of their hijinks

what the community is doing is this.
for the open decentralised(atbest) definition.. they call blockchain
for the closed / distributed within authorised userset definition.. they call DLT (distributed ledger technology)

however the way things are going where only one team get to dominate the direction of protocol changes and make demands that an upgrade is mandatory.. yea the old definition of blockchain is starting to lose its 'decentralisation' ethos

it batches up data into a BLOCK of data, gets the community to verify the data and specialised equipment to make an identifier of that block hard to replicate and then puts the identifier of the previous block into the next BLOCK to CHAIN them together

 to such an extent that no single person can simply edit a small piece of existing data because that editors version wont match the chain of blocks everyone else has

LN is not a sole feature of bitcoin.. so.. altcoins like litecoin will also have bitcoins stuff. plus the things bitcoin doesnt.
you mentioned litecoin, so lets talk about that
litcoin, = segwit ltc1q addresses, litecoin using LN, litecoins faster blocktimes, litcoins cheaper onchain fee's, litcoins statistically higher than 7tx/s
 
seems too many people are hanging onto bitcoins viability IF LN arrives.. problem is. all other coins will get to use LN too. so bitcoin wont have a feature that only benefits bitcoin.

its like shouting "myspace will soon include playing videos on peoples profiles yeppie!!............ oh wait facebook, googlplus will also do this"..


dont hold all your hopes onto LN. its just a crypto side service for ALL coins. instead stop kissing devs asses for making people have to lock coins into multisig vaults to then use a service which then promotes that its cheaper to use.. and then if wantiing to settle, cheaper and faster to settle on an altcoin like litecoin..
many pople THAT ACTUALLY USE LN (not just read the reddit promotions) have run scenarios and found flaws. and also seen that once inside LN, returning back to bitcoins mainnet sems less appealing than alternatives. .. that includes the devs themselves

when devs themselves are literally screaming bitcoins mainnet cant scale, its slow and no longer innovative.. (yes they are the cause of the stagnation of innovation) you need to take a step back and really think about what has changed since 2013 and then run some actual scenarios... not just read utopian adverts on reddit

and then.. kick (kick not kiss) the dev's asses to get back to innovating bitcoins mainnet instead of these corporate side services

#1 agree, mayor multiple. but i would also add the miner multiple too.. the cost of creating new coins via mining is also at a low profit margin which indicats price is not at a bubble, but also at a close to the real underlying value. thus furthr strengthns the concept that the price is at a good low/buying oppertunity

#2 reliable yes. but that should be standard for blockchain if they are to follow consensus.. but i agree worthy of mentioning
but here is where certain things start to sound too utopian washed over details to garner optimism and adoption..
segwit utility is NOT at 40%
take a tx of inputs
in
1Legacyaddress
bc1qsegwitaddress
1Legacyaddress
1Legacyaddress

this tx is only 25% segwit yet on the stats YOU view shows as 100% segwit.
based on number of inputs on the mainnet that are signed(witnessd) by segwit protocol are FAR less that actually use segwit. .. once the real data is calculated rather than rounded up..
try not to over exaggurate (over promise under deliver)


#3 again try not to over exaggurate (over promise under deliver)

lightning is a separate network but its impact is negligable. plus LN is not a network solely to be used for bitcoin. thus advertising it as bitcoins solution is the same as advertising an exchanges internal 'send to member offchain' of any crypto.. your over selling its stats and over selling its benefits for bitcoin alone to dominate due to it. LN is not a feature solely for bitcoin. and should not be advertised as something that makes bitcoin better than other coins because LN will be used by many coins.
try not to over exaggurate (over promise under deliver)

.. also. lightning LOSES bitcoins ideology. research channels and routing a little more(multisig). realise the multiple parties ARE needed to authorise payments. and that unlike bitcoin mainnet which is a PUSH payment. LN is a handshake payment. yep evn the recipient has to be online AND sign a TX to agree to receive payment aswell as all users along the route have to sign a tx to agree to act as a route. so becareful how you overpromise and under deliver the features description

#4 agree with many points about bitcoins dominance. but parts of this long chapter of reasons are oversold.
you mention the scaling debate of 2017 was decentralised. and yet. consensus was actually bypassed. by doing a mandatory bilateral split using a 3 card hustle manauver
also again LN is not a scaling solution purely set up for bitcoin alone to keep dominance. LN will be a 'scaling' bypass SERVICE for MANY coins. so LN could actually be the knife in bitcoins back that maks people move over to other coins due to the headache of settling tx's being more costly/slower on btc compared to other blockchains.
and lastly try not to use the "market share" as that number actually has no real meaning. there are not hundreds of billions of dollars locked up with bitcoins name on it. its just a math multiple of the price of 1 coin multiplied by coins in circulation.. someone tomorrow could make a blockchain of 1 trillion coins, sell just 1 coin for $5 and bam. $5trillion markt cap, and take over the market share. so again dont ovrsell/over promise using stats that are flimsy and not accurate to real monetary value

#5 securities and ETF are not going to affect real bitcoin trades. they are just hoarders of coins that then separatly OFFMARKET sell SHARES of their company. thus thee dollars and valuation of the company increase without those funds actually even touching bitcoin exchanges.
try not to over exaggurate (over promise under deliver). you kinda explained it. but worded it a bit too utopian dream of hope about the ETF and underplayd how ETF can actually take funds out of direct bitcoin exchanges and instad where that fiat could justend up into company shares, thus negatively affecting the bitcoin market

#6
i agree fiat is in trouble. but all the stuff like LN and blockchains can be used by govrnment to make their own crypto. i envision. governments shift over to a crypto of their making. and then hyper inflate the old traditional paper fiat so that their trillions of papr debt become the value of a loaf of bread so that they become debt free for a loaf of bread(trillions of zimbabwe dollar only buys 1 loaf of bread). but then bitcoin will (imagining this months value as 6000loaves of bread) will end up being measured as 6000 loaves of bread of a governments crypto.
so dont get too excited about hyper inflation making btc look like one coin is a trillion paper dollars.. where the real value is only still a few thousand loaves of bread goods purchase value

#7 you mentioned about rgulations and securities entring the blockchain ecosphere a few points back. which is actually making bitcoin less like privacy money. this also includes LN. which REQUIRES multiparty authorisation. so again try not to over exaggurate (over promise under deliver)

#8 be cautious when talking about monetary supply. economists are learning quickly that although bitcoin WAS limited to 2.1quadrillion sharable units, developers are actually envisioning moving to there being 2.1 Quintillion sharable units. they have already implemented it within LN and propose to add it to bitcoins mainnet too(sats vs millisats). thus more people will get to own parts of a bitcoin without struggle/limitation.
EG imagine a fight for gold if there were only 175,000 sharable units of gold in the world... then imagine suddenly markets split that and now 14mil sharable units of gold. and then split that again to 6.17billion sharable units of gold. now all a sudden people realise everyone could have a piece of gold instead of just 175,000 rich guys.. gold loses its elitist 'i own gold'' appeal mindset. and people have it in their house and not care/realise they have it. which is the current mindset.

#9 you do have the answer. you made it clear in #1. the $19500 was not a ground level price that everyone stood at and everyone had time to take advantage of and get used to. no one should stand at a peak of a mountain that only exists for minutes and call it home. and then scream collapse minutes later. instead they should stand at the real ground level and see a tsunami incoming. where shorters would scream devistation and long's get a nice "yee haa lets surf this massive wave' of excitement.. and then minutes later when the waterline corrects go back to living at ground level waiting for the next wave or climate change increase of natural water levels
.. but i would say dont oversell/over promise price predictions.. the events of 2013 are not the same events occuring this year. try to avoid being a trend anal to shout out a price. unless you have a technical analist reason.. yep trends and technical are different. take october 2013.. that rise was due to ASICs and the cost of mining increase, which caused the price increase... (which is why in point #1 i mentioned that mining cost sit beside the mayor multiple when considering what is 'value'/low price)
.. again your over embelishing features that are not really causing big enough impact to bitcoin and are ultimatly not features solely to be usd by bitcoin to keep bitcoin as a tool that offers something no othr crypto will offer.

#10
you have mentioned the mayoral multiple a few times. but anyon can select a number and make it look good. for instance if we took a 200 day average.. like you did.. but then if you take a 250 day average.. you will see a major difference. so this week you might b screaming 20day avrage.. but then when a 200 day average does not fit a positive narrative. you may scream a new number of 150 or 250 day that does fit a narative. so be careful of just doing trend anals.. instead of explaining technical analysis

......
in summary i would give you a 6 out of 10 as is,
with a flimsy 9 of 10 if you were less utopian overselling under promising.

i too have been involved havily in bitcoin since 2012 and no im not a BCH fanboy. but i am not afraid to admit btc's flaws and issues so that people can be truly informed and then reap the benefits. rather than sold a over promise and get disapointed and end up thinking they got fooled into a gimmick, even when btc is not a gimmick.

EG
advertise LN as a side service for a niche of users who desire to spend frequently.... but not a sole solution purely for bitcoin that all bitcoin users will need/want/benefit from using. (even LN devs have warnings up, and that LN is not a usecase for everyone all the time).. and its not a feature only bitcoiners get to use

issues
LN is for CROSS platforms:
this means its not a network to make bitcoin scale.. but to make ANY blockchain scale. meaning while bitcoin devs scream bitcoins blckchain cant scale, bitcoins blockchain is expensive, slow...  other devs of things like litecoin will be promoting faster settlement cheaper settlement and better onchain control. thus making bitcoin lose dominance and making people prfr to settle and hoard an altcoin..

LN is multisig
this means forget the permissionless, no-trust required PUSH payment system of bitcoin which everyone loved. LN is a counterparty requird authorisation system and also requires authorisation of every user of the route AND the authorisation of the destination. they are desparetly trying to automate the authorisations so people dont realise it. but by doing so, the automation can also negatively be used to raid people of their funds because they cant stop it in the half second an automation occurs. EG when you see the hen leave the hen house its harder to grab it hold and put it back in the hen house, especially if the hen house doors are set to open automatically to encourage free movement of the hen.
remmber when funds ar in your channel your funds can be used by others to route their payments. and in a "fast network" you wont get the manual control you acknowledge/manualy authoruis others route/use of your funds.

LN has opened up new vulnerable opcodes and scripts
because most consumers wont have time experience/knowledge to check every payment at raw tx level. they will not se if whats being signed is actually the terms/conditions that they are comfortable with.(opcode, punishments, fee's)

LN involves preplanning spending habits and pre-depositing funds
firstly knowing you may use starbucks daily but walmart fortnightly you would prefer to connct as close to/more direct to a starbucks hub to reduce fee's and organise the routes accordingly. after all you dont want to end up conncting directly to your opticians directly that you only see once every 2 years but then have starbucks 10 hops away(costing you 10x fee) for daily purchases.
then you will need to fund a number of channels(not have funds sat in one 'wallet' but locked into separate channels(accounts) that go through only the certain counterparty you lockd onto
so you would then need to rmember
$600 for optician... time lock 6 years
$90 for starbucks.. time lock 1 month ($3 a day habit)
$480 for walmart..timelock 2 month ($120 a fortnight habit)
some say 1 channel per node. but that does not work in reality because your 1 countrparty may go offline and if they are only conectd to you.. then you/they ar not part of a well established route. thus you DO end up having multiple channels

this is because if you are only going to mak 1 payment.. its a waste to ven us LN. bcause opening and closing is 2 onchain payments. so moving the money twice onchain just to use once offchain is stupid. so yea you will need to plan spending habits and lock funds in for a considered period of time to make the most of the cost saving of onchain fee's

and even then. if your optician goes offline of a hop between you and starbucks on the route gets DDoSed you then have to move funds about again into new channels to find other routes, or you may end up forced to use a route with a high fee offchain
(this is called the 'hook fee' all businesses use this to entice new customers.. entice you in with a route of only 1millisat per hop and then 2 hops(2millisat total).. then disconnct the second hop(they control), and create a staged route(they control) of 20 hops at 2millisat each to get to the destination. because they have programemed their node to only connect to directly to their own sybil nodes for a distance of 20 hops. so they can grab 40millisats from evry customer who then connect to the outer ring of their sybil nodes...

yes. many users have already envisioned setting up multiple sybil nodes to double/quadruple the fee's they get by setting up themselves on a well established route
imagine it like closing a country road to force people onto a toll road, knowing users funds ar locked into thier channel they have no choice but to accept the route handed to them or pay the onchain fee/punishment to exit the channel

blah blah
the reason i dont go into details about the failures is because you seem more interested in making buzzworded statements to make it seem like you know all about whats needed. (via 2 minutes of google searching to find the terminology to make it sound good. but still not actually put in the real effort that real projects put in.

as for your glossy images. im all for glossy images. if the images are based off of realistic/logical thought processes and models of design that have had some thought put into it..

the glossy images i have seen from your projects are just utupia
EG
those images have not got the design concept that shows an architect has taken in all the details of waste, power, utility, transport, comunication, to draw up a basic blueprint. to then pass onto a designer to gloss it up with snazzy colours/wall coverings

again i wont go into details of all the flaws. because instead of seeking the "experts" to do a project in a logical order of actually using experts to get the project moving. what it appears is that funding is just used to go on vacations and make video's of presntations purely to boost the money grab. not progress the fundementals

and dont waste 4 years money grabbing just to make one prototype.. thats something that can be done in 6 months.
phase 1 2022.. makes me laugh

and as you said. your last project.. again same plan as this one. failed.. and have you learned why?

micro nations are not real nations that can impact real things. in the end they result in communes. of less than 200 people. all requiring to throw alot of money in but then find the area they live is not self sustaining and they have to rely on imports and then export their waste thus rely on regulations of neighbouring countries waste controls.
scrw it lets just point out the financial flaw..
wanting THOUSANDS of people to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars to get to the billions needed.. for a project that will only house hundred or less.. just doesnt even make a working real estate project viable/realistic.. even with or without the buzzword utopia of "sovereignty/micronation" added into it

for al your efforts. you might aswll buy some farmland and just turn it into a crypto town. if you have not learned that even in "international waters" you still have to follow laws/rules. then you have not learned the basics

the price has RECOVERED

stop standing at the top of a mountain peak looking down as if what your looking at is a cliff edge of a drop.
a mountain is not the level ground of where everyone should stand..

instead stand at ground level of octobers $6k and march-july's ~$6k and see that a tsunami occured where everyone looked at the skies and seen a large wave occur out of nowhere... and now the tides have recovered back to normal base levels

that $20k was not something 100% of people could take advantage of. it was not something that hung around for months for everyone to organise their finances and get online and trade and appreciate.. the $20k was a very temporary fluke that lasted minutes.

so just stop thinking about $20k as if it was "the norm" and anything below it is disaster undervalue.

be sensible and stand at ground level

what if i told you the BCH social drama around the branding was a massive ruse/rverse psychology to make people want to hand the whole bitcoin branding over to theymos and the core team(thus barry silbert with ownership stakes of pretty much both side wins no matter what)

EG
kylie jenner vs kloe kardashian.. both fight over who is a real kardashian.. purely so that the family(caitlin) legally get to own the brand "kardashian" rather than keep the nam open for any family of 7 billion people to use

seems the topic creator found my theory.
but first lets address kakmakr's rply.

firstly LN is not a solution for BTC. its a separate commercial network that many/anycoin will use. so its again ill say it for emphasis. not a solution purely for BTC to 'make BTC great agan'
secondly even the core dev's are screaming that BTC cant scale. .. although its only failing at scaling onchain due to the restrictions those same devs have implemented,
you have to wonder when the devs in control of bitcoins blockchain protocol rules start saying the blockchain protocol is dead and the only future is non-blockchain managed vaults(ln channels)...
even you kakmakr are saying blockchain is dead/btc is dead. long live LN managed channels)
analogy: gold trading is dead long live unaudited paper money

thirdly. the topic creator found my theory and is asking the question. what if ver and theymos (the mouth pieces) are 2 sides of the same family. pretending to open up 2 different fan bases but both in the end, in the background are not rivals but paid by the same investors and following a single agenda of fake choice and the illusion of free choice.

just follow the money https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
the drama of august 1st was a 3 shell game trying to look like people got 3 choices.
segwit UASF (luke JR, samson mow, bobby lee, petertodd, etc)  - businesses BTCC, blockstream
segwitx2 (jgarzig, gavin A) - businesses bitpay, bloq
bch (ver) - businesses blockchain

imagine barry silbert(DCG.co) is the parent caitlin jenner. and segwit(core) bch(cash) are the children (kylie and kloe)

real funny part is that ver is not even a programmer. so all the social drama of bch being vers network is hilarious.
to me all the finger pointing is social drama. not technical stuff..
ver owning bch is like saying theymos owns core.. (both are the social media faces of the sides of the coin pretending to being the opposite sides/ separate choice)
adamback is like craig wright. both shouting the "i had involvement in inventing the invention known as bitcoin, but i didnt code anything in 2009+"
adam back and craig also both love the social drama of saying they both love patents and investor money grabs.

its the same drama of both sides to keep people occupied in social drama's to distract people away from seeing the code changes are all being controlled into one single commercial roadmap end destination

so many people reading the headline but not actually rading the content

IT IS NOT BANNED

its a MEMO reminding people that th banks do not insure peoples funds and the banks say its a risk to trade
MEMO's are not law.
memo's are just risk awareness reminders.

in short they are saying.. dont come crying to us asking for your money back because we dont endorse or insure crypto.. so trade at your own risk

fractal patterns only happen when trading occurs due to dumb/lazy bots programmed to repeat history based on TRENDS

natural non fractal patterns is when trading occurs due to bots and human emotion. where they react to live /new situations and TECHNICALS

trnd anals and technical analysis are 2 separate things. its far btter to avoid trend anals, as thats not natural trading. its not even sensible logical trading. its just dumb/lazy bot programming

its not a ban

its a memo,
a mmo that say that the central bank of sri lanka will not be held accountable for any actions done by businesses and that the central bank does not insure or licence it.

.. the central bank doe not endors or licence baked beans.. thats why you dont see a bank slling baked beans.
until there is a GOVERNMENT LAW. that states it is illegal to operate a crypto business. and that law mentions the penalty.. then just treat the memo as what it is .. a memo

nearly every country has released an investor warning memo that investing in crypto is risky and a bank will not insure losses

blockchain
if its open sourced, distributed to entities of not the same group.. its "blockchain"
if its closed source or only distributed within a company/oligarchy then its "distributed ledger technology(DLT)"
.. functionally similar. but who has access to it is the differential

though many think DLT are useless because if its within the same organisation they already have a mutual trust level to just use one server. but infact the costs of maintaining one server far exceeds that of using DLT distributed over multiple locations.
think about it. needing a facility, and a team of security monitoring the single source and ensuring it never goes down.. vs a self auditing multilocation model that doesnt need a team managing it because it self manages and audits. it also can still function in blackout conditions thus less requirement on generator backups and electrician checkups of wiring etc. doesnt need HR monitoring users as users wont get full control to trojan horse the network

so business organisations can sack alot of their IT security staff, auditors, maintenance guys and just get normal regular staff to have it running in normal offices in different locations..while normal staff do thir normal other tasks.

as for the protocol updates
blockchain should remain consensus. whereby its a community majority decision that doesnt update unless clear majority.. (unlike a recent mandatory fork last year(facepalm))
DLT can do mandatory forks as its their closed/corporate software and thus they can have more say on how things ar done.
... but in short blockchains should not have one dev team dictate the future using threats of banishment if not adopting their desires.

as for the data held within
it could be cryptocurrncy. or cryptoID. or cryptoLand registry. anything that needs to be logged and then accessed by mor than one person in one location could use blockchain/DLT based data secured cryptographically

as for cryptocurrency on its own
well LN wants to use cryptocurrency without the blockchain (bar using a blockchain as thee seed generation of a currency) and then later only used 'factories'(fort knox channels) to settle/reset channels all offchain to not require returning to blockchains
but stuff like that, due to it being unaudited by the community and not immutable by blockmining. bypasses all the security measure of why blockchains were invented. and as such. could leave LN being gamed/tricked by users who twak their softwar to have the upper hand vs their multisig channel partner. and it would be possible because the transactions are not auditd by the community/miners.


anyway.. back to blockchain
many people think that a blockchain has to be a single block that is chained to another single block that chained to another block in a single row.
but that does not have to b the case.
infact analogically bitcoin has 2 blocks. the legacy 1mb block and the witness block. stuck side by side, but are processed as on row

sidechains can be where one chain doesnt hold cryptocurrency. but holds lists of hashes of multiple other chains.
imagine it like each local bank branch has its own blockchain. and serves only 10000 bank customers per branch. the block header of each branch plus the total reserve of that branch is sent to a head office chain where each headoffice block is a list of a few thousand bank branch headers and reserve totals. now that bank head office chain is gtting audited by the bank branches and the bank branches can self audit each other too. allowing for 1billion customers to have functionality. without a block of a chain exceding 10,000 tx's/listings a block.. EG not everyone needs to have all the data. but it can be split up regionally to share certain data.

why are people screaming the word regulation, in many cases saying in terms as a positive thing that should be welcomed.. (facepalm)

dont you guys realise. regulation is not to protect consumers, but to monitor and police consumers and to protect businesses from prosecution.

what we should be advocating for is not regulation. but consumer protection. so that us users can make businesses accountable... not the other way round

remember the 2008 crisis..
how many regulated bank CEO's got prison time...  none
how many bank ceo's got bonuses and government payouts.. most of them

how many mortgage users got a free house.. none
how many mortgage users got thrown on the street.. most of them

think about it

luke wantd to avoid hardforks....?? .. pfft.. no. luke wanted to avoid the network voting against the cor roadmap. basically not following the core roadmap, so  he went out screaming that everything not core roadmap was bad.. and then went on and became part of the 3 shell trick game to actually cause a harkfork (mandatory bilateral split)
i call it the 3shell game because it appears as if its 3 choices to make on august first, but when you look under the shells, the result is the same.
USAF, BLOQ, ABC are all part of the same thing all paid by the same investors. (DCG.co)

as for luke wanting to decrease the soft limit(policy.h) back down to 0.5mb and you wanting quotes.. and your love for reading reddit and taking what is said on reddit as gospel. i shall give you your dream and desire of quote and of format you desire.
so here it is, on reddit. that way its from the horses mouth and from the source media site most fanboys love. thus you cannot say its biased.. because its handed to you exactly as you would prefer
https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/

this is him talking before segwit about how moving the policy from 0.75 to 1mb was premature and how core devs veto'd all hard limit(consensus.h) proposals.. and how he wanted the soft limit back down to 0.5mb... he even went on to say when LN finaly works he would hope for 0.1mb blocks.

ask yourself WHY
(answer: bottleneck mainnet. say mainnet cant scale to keep people using LN and vault up the coins into 'factories' to recycle channels(fort knox) so all that people play with in the end is unaudited unconfirmed, non community verified tx's.. oh wait. thats fiat2.0


gota laugh though. Luke Jr was part of team USAF which instigated the mandatory split. even though segwit from november2016 to spring 2017 only garnered 35% community approval.

but those funded by the DCG.co invstors did not just say lets go back to the drawing board and find a compromise the community would accept. they tripled down to push it through by making it MANDATORY


and if you even want to dare say that 32mb or any size above 1mb wont work per block..
then please.. go tell netflix that 32mb/10min(3.2mb/min) wont work and netflix should close for business because netflix cant work
tell itunes that its impossible to download a 3.2mb mp3 in under 1 minute...
go tell all the live streaming/video call services that they cant work.