OP with false propaganda.. so lets clarify the truth and why the core paid devs are desparate to OWN BITCOIN

BLOQ created bitcoin cash
BLOQ made it to shift all core opposers away from core so that core can jump from 35% vote to 95% vote by getting rid of opposition
(segwit bilateral split)
BLOQ is a financial partner of the paid devs of core(blockstream).
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b

DCG an blockstream and bloq are also partners with bitpay, coinbase and.. the biggest crypto media coindesk

what i really find strange is why none of the core fanboys are attacking jgarzic for making bitcoin cash.. oh, its not strange. i just explained why
 

---

before rebutting with anything that resembles defending core and thinking bitcoin core deserve full and sole ownership of "bitcoin" ask yourself this
1. isnt handing bitcoin.com to one central group (core team) anti-decentralisation
2. replace the word "bitcoin core" with U.S dollar.. "bitcoin cash" with canadian dollar. and BITCOIN with "dollar"
then take a step back and run your rebuttle argument through your mind.
(imagine having your bitcoin argument but talking about fiat dollar and  america vs canada)

P.S
try your hardest to not wear the U.S / core defensive cap when following point 2. instead wear a "bitcoin decentralised" cap



theymos/cobra and the core clan already own too much of "bitcoin"

so here we ago again
NO ONE OWNS BITCOIN. and core definetly should not. this "ver drama" is all just a ploy to hand the brand and trademark to one central team

lets make it simple, bitcoin brand is like dollar brand

america have dollar
australia have dollar
canada have dollar

in normal conversation a canadaian CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint U.S dollar
in normal conversation a american CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint canadian dollar

an australian forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy U.S dollars"
an american forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy A.U dollars"
a bitcoin core exchange can put buy bitcoin or buy bitcoin cash
a bitcoin cash exchange can put buy bitcoin or buy bitcoin core

EG
if a european wants dollars, so the conversation is.. "do you want U.S at ~0.8Eur/$ or A.U at ~0.6/$"
if a fiat holder wants bitcoin, so the conversation is.. "do you want core at ~$9,000k or cash ~$900"

so the conversation is there is U.S dollar AND A.U dollar
so the conversation is there is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash

there would only be fraud if Australia was selling australian dollar at the american dollar rate

there would only be fraud if bitcoin cash was selling bitcoin cash coins at the bitcoin core rate

an american can say "i got 99 dollars but a A.U dollar aint one"
an australian can say "i got 99 dollars but a U.S dollar aint one"

an american cannot say "australia is fake,fraud, non existant, a myth, a dream they dont have dollars"

once you stop being a foolish sheep protecting core as a centralist group... and instead ignore the core team and think about DECENTRALISATION and noone should own bitcoin. then you see that this social drama of lawsuits/banning/reporting. is just cencorsip to drive out consensus/decentralisation/competition.. and just promote centralisation towards the core team becoming a monarchy

so, how did it all occur you may ask..

the 2017 event was a bilateral split instigated by the core team and their partners (blockstream: samson mow... Bloq:jgarzic) to do a bilateral split where BOTH SIDES become an altcoin
yes both blockstream guys and bloq guys(the main paid devs involved in core) who are all paid by the same investors created both bitcoin core and bitcoin cash
yes we all know that the core team are point fingers at jihan and ver.. but it was actually BLOQ that made bitcoin cash.. yes thats how desparate to cause propaganda they are that they wont admit their own partner made it

anyway the bilateral fork..
unlike UNILATERAL forks like clams. .

its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash
(unilateral)

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash
(unilateral)

but was a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash
(biilateral)

yes BOTH sides split

this whole thing would not have happened if the bilateral split did not occur and REAL consensus was used. but no.. core hated that they only had 35% of the vote and so forced a bilateral split using their partner and then tried blaming a third person.
(facepalm) at cores shadiness to try making bitcoin centralised


so. the solution is simple..
when thinking of bitcoin. think of it as the same conversation you would have travelling around the world and talking about dollar.
"is that U.S, A.U. CAD your talking about/want"

then things become simple

if anyone sent coins to the wrong address.. just get the private key from the wallet and use it on the correct wallet for the coin that got sent

as for the lawsuit.
(analogy) i doubt anyone bought a A.U dollar at a U.S rate
(analogy) i doubt anyone bought a U.S dollar at a A.U rate

i doubt anyone bought a bitcoin cash coin at a bitcoin core rate
i doubt anyone bought a bitcoin core coin at a bitcoin cash rate
so no fraud.

and core is using bitcoin.org to promote bitcoin core as bitcoin.. maybe the community should take bitcoin .org off theymos's hands aswell as bitcoin.com off vers hands. and then treat bitcoin like dollar... EG
bitcoin core as U.S dollar
bitcoin cash as A.U dollar

meaning no bias
but im guessing all im gonna see are arguments that core monarchy should own "bitcoin", if so, get a tissue, your nose is a lil brown, and your lips are a lil chapped

before rebutting with anything that resembles defending core and thinking bitcoin core deserve full and sole ownership of "bitcoin" ask yourself this
1. isnt handing bitcoin.com to one central group (core team) anti-decentralisation
2. replace the word "bitcoin core" with U.S dollar.. "bitcoin cash" with canadian dollar. and BITCOIN with "dollar"
then take a step back and run your rebuttle argument through your mind.
(imagine having your bitcoin argument but talking about fiat dollar and  america vs canada)

P.S
try your hardest to not wear the U.S / core defensive cap when following point 2. instead wear a "bitcoin decentralised" cap



theymos/cobra and the core clan already own too much of "bitcoin"

so here we ago again
NO ONE OWNS BITCOIN. and core definetly should not. this "ver drama" is all just a ploy to hand the brand and trademark to one central team

lets make it simple, bitcoin brand is like dollar brand

america have dollar
australia have dollar
canada have dollar

in normal conversation a canadaian CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint U.S dollar
in normal conversation a american CAN happily say they have dollars in their pocket but it aint canadian dollar

an australian forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy U.S dollars"
an american forex CAN put.. "buy dollars or buy A.U dollars"
a bitcoin core exchange can put buy bitcoin or buy bitcoin cash
a bitcoin cash exchange can put buy bitcoin or buy bitcoin core

EG
if a european wants dollars, so the conversation is.. "do you want U.S at ~0.8Eur/$ or A.U at ~0.6/$"
if a fiat holder wants bitcoin, so the conversation is.. "do you want core at ~$9,000k or cash ~$900"

so the conversation is there is U.S dollar AND A.U dollar
so the conversation is there is bitcoin core and bitcoin cash

there would only be fraud if Australia was selling australian dollar at the american dollar rate

there would only be fraud if bitcoin cash was selling bitcoin cash coins at the bitcoin core rate

an american can say "i got 99 dollars but a A.U dollar aint one"
an australian can say "i got 99 dollars but a U.S dollar aint one"

an american cannot say "australia is fake,fraud, non existant, a myth, a dream they dont have dollars"

once you stop being a foolish sheep protecting core as a centralist group... and instead ignore the core team and think about DECENTRALISATION and noone should own bitcoin. then you see that this social drama of lawsuits/banning/reporting. is just cencorsip to drive out consensus/decentralisation/competition.. and just promote centralisation towards the core team becoming a monarchy

so, how did it all occur you may ask..

the 2017 event was a bilateral split instigated by the core team and their partners (blockstream: samson mow... Bloq:jgarzic) to do a bilateral split where BOTH SIDES become an altcoin
yes both blockstream guys and bloq guys(the main paid devs involved in core) who are all paid by the same investors created both bitcoin core and bitcoin cash
yes we all know that the core team are point fingers at jihan and ver.. but it was actually BLOQ that made bitcoin cash.. yes thats how desparate to cause propaganda they are that they wont admit their own partner made it

anyway the bilateral fork..
unlike UNILATERAL forks like clams. .

its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash
(unilateral)

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash
(unilateral)

but was a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash
(biilateral)

yes BOTH sides split

this whole thing would not have happened if the bilateral split did not occur and REAL consensus was used. but no.. core hated that they only had 35% of the vote and so forced a bilateral split using their partner and then tried blaming a third person.
(facepalm) at cores shadiness to try making bitcoin centralised


so. the solution is simple..
when thinking of bitcoin. think of it as the same conversation you would have travelling around the world and talking about dollar.
"is that U.S, A.U. CAD your talking about/want"

then things become simple

if anyone sent coins to the wrong address.. just get the private key from the wallet and use it on the correct wallet for the coin that got sent

as for the lawsuit.
(analogy) i doubt anyone bought a A.U dollar at a U.S rate
(analogy) i doubt anyone bought a U.S dollar at a A.U rate

i doubt anyone bought a bitcoin cash coin at a bitcoin core rate
i doubt anyone bought a bitcoin core coin at a bitcoin cash rate
so no fraud.

here is how the block rewards change over time

but anyway for mathematical purposes

year*  reward
2009   50.00000000
2013   25.00000000
2017   12.50000000
2021   6.25000000
2025   3.12500000
2029   1.56250000**
2033   0.78125000
2037   0.39062500
2041   0.19531250
2045   0.09765625
2049   0.04882813
2053   0.02441406
2057   0.01220703
2061   0.00610352
2065   0.00305176
2069   0.00152588
2073   0.00076294
2077   0.00038147
2081   0.00019073
2085   0.00009537
2089   0.00004768
2093   0.00002384
2097   0.00001192
2101   0.00000596
2105   0.00000298
2109   0.00000149
2113   0.00000075
2117   0.00000037
2121   0.00000019
2125   0.00000009
2129   0.00000005
2133   0.00000002
2137   0.00000001
2141   0.00000000

**based purely on current fees per block(~1.5btc)..
we could see the importance of reward:fee  flip to  fee:reward happening around 2029
where pools care less about the reward and care more about fees

the pools will continue to mine blocks because they get paid via fee's from transactions

*note dates are variable because blocks are not solved at exact times of 10 minutes(2016/fortnight)
for instance the january 2013 halving actually happened in november 2012 and the 2017 halving happened in july 2016. the next halving is ETA'd for May 2020(not jaanuary 2021)

to interupt the conversation flow some more
to rub some pepper into the salt, those channel/node counts are actually not people counts. some of them hubs are run by one person and run on servers like amazon.. (remember the image of the network for >EUROPE< network) in another topic. that node owner has other large channel count hubs too.

as for "critics doing the maths" they said 1mb+ woul kill the network and will get hit by the chinese firewall..
they ademently refused 2mb at the late 2015 'consensus' conference. and then challenged that segwit+offchain was the only way

.. months later..
strangely but not surpringly backed down and denounced their own maths when they buzzworded their "weight" of 4mb. i even rememeber laughing that LukeJr (moderator of the bips) pretended that he had no control of core and was just a contributor. saying it in a manner that he was just the was just a janitor, cleaning the rubbish out of a corporate offices trashcan and had no control over what bips got accepted or rejected

satoshi did agree with hearne that offchain is possible in as much as online exchanges dont have to publish every trade.
even before LN. there were things like bitgo that utilised multisig to do offchain stuff too

but satoshis quote and bitgo are not LN and LN cannot pretend to be the concept of satoshi nor bitgo nor anything prior.

also it was hearne who used terms like settlement layer, channels.
it was hearne who joined R3 and became part of hyperledger.. and .. (drum roll) so did blockstream, which is where all this stuff is being cencepted behind the scenes

and yes LN will be the vessel to allow offchain swaps between different currencies in the future (another thing hyperledger banking groups want) which is where the whole BC1q addresses became a thing instead of sticking with '3' addresses so that inside LN, bankers can identify a bitcoin currency address by its BC1q and then the bankers can have their fiat coins identified by their USD1q GBP1q addresses

... oops did i let that slip.. oh no.. now the core loyalists are salivating even mor at the mouth to let cores PAID devs do what they like and centralise even further just for the orgasmic thought of offchain swaps with fiat.. without giving a crap about bitcoins decentralisation and whole original ethos of bitcoin

i would agre having funds in a multisig is better than just putting funds into an exchanges sole control private key.
but.,
you can also get blackmailed and scammed by the current LN channel counterpart. seems people need to run more scenarios before screaming LN is utopia


seem zin-zang is talking about a hub BEING your counterpart. and a hub with hundreds of channels (acting like a bank branch manager is not exactly going to match the 'customers'(your) funds 1-for-1. because if a hubs channel counterparts are all risking say $60+ value that would mean a hub would have to reserve $6,000 just to be a channel counter part to 100 people.

also when you make a payment. your actual funds do not reach the recipient. you pay the hub. the hub then uses the hubs other funds it has with another channel to pay that person. so both you and the destination recipient are relying on the hub.

running scenarios. most establish hubs. lets use starbucks for instance as becoming the BANK branch2.0 hub. they would hate it if for every loyal customer who wants to risk $60 to buy a month of coffee, do you think starbucks too would put $60 into every loyal customrs joint bank account it has with said customer
no. at most starbuck would only put in $2-4, maybe. to cover any wire transfer fee's(onchain fee) for settling up the bartab. and maybe just enough to cover a 1 coffee refund/buy a friend a coffee amount
meaning starbucks who only has $2-$4 to lose with a counter part. and requiring customers to be honourable will have the upper hand of ensuring the customer signs first and bills get paid in a quick manner otherwise starbucks will give penaltie to the customer

starbucks would then put $6000 into a channel with another banker hub. and let the other hub handle anything bigger than $2 for larger routes

just to interupt

LN relies on timelocks
timelocks is a broad term for several time lock features that are available. and LN relies on 3 different time locks for it to work

LN uses
Nlocktime
the CSV+CLTV
and HLTC

Nlock time to prevent a TX being accepted into a block until X blockheight

CSV+CLTV to, when added to a block prevent the new UTXO from being spent for a certain period to allow the counter party time to sumbit a revocation

and

HTLC for the in-channel routing to not treat a intermediary routed payment as 'accepted' until the final recipient has accepted.

HTLC is normally meant to expire in a few seconds
CSV+CLTV is normally meant to be treated as the equivelent of banks 3-5 day 'balance pending' settlement period to allow chargebacks before finally become 'available balance'
and Nlocktime is normally meant to be treated like a childs trust fund, where it cant be used before a certain date

and yes knitpickers im using very basic ELI-5 bank comparable explanations.. not conveluted technical buzzworditry to hide the reality like a few people keep trying to do

lets see how long it takes before core fan boys pretend segwit and LN caused cheap prices.

even though the reality is that spam from mixers caused high prices to pretend segwit/ln was needed, just to force the bilateral split
major spam vents always happen when core need the community to react and upgrade to their bip
summer 2016(bip68+112), november 2016(sw'bfore christmas push'), summer 2017(bilateral split due to sw stagnation of only~35%)
coincidence?.. nope

oh and lets not forget now the spam has died because gmax told his mixer pals to calm it down post split.
that segwit utility and LN usage is below 10% so caused no actual impact.
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=180days

yea even the big segwit advocates of BTCC have yet to trust segwit enough to put their block rewards on segwit addresses
1* address not bc1q* address
https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000000bff3438191e837cbd2870d049a3f9aeb5b922afd921dc

i doubt there is any loss, people who bought bitcoin cash paid under $1.5k a coin

imagine it like
customer: "i want an appple..."
merchant: "thats 50cents... hands customer a fruit"
customer: "i wanted an appple iphone not this apple fruit"
merchant: "well you only paid 50cents so your not going to get a iphone. but you can pay the remainder of 698.50 and exchange it for a full iphone"

EURO customer: "i want an dollar..."
merchant: "thats 0.61euro... hands customer a australian dollar"
customer: "i wanted an american dollar not this australian dollar"
merchant: "well you only paid 0.61euro so your not going to get an american dollar. but you can pay the remainder of 0.20euro and exchange it for an american dollar"

customer: "i want a bitcoin..."
merchant: "thats $1400... hands customer a bitcoin cash"
customer: "i wanted an bitcoin core not this bitcoin cash"
merchant: "well you only paid $1400 so your not going to get a iphone. but you can pay the remainder of $7600 and exchange it for a full bitcoin core coin"

let me guess. you think only america should own dollar.com.. oh and america should own dollar.au and dollar.ca all bcause you may feel only america should use the brand "dollar"

before rebutting with anything that resembles defending core and thinking bitcoin core deserve full and sole ownership of "bitcoin" ask yourself this
1. isnt handing bitcoin.com to one central group (core team) anti-decentralisation
2. replace the word "bitcoin core" with U.S dollar.. "bitcoin cash" with canadian dollar. and BITCOIN with "dollar"
then take a step back and run your argument through your mind.
imagine having that fiat argument about dollar and  america vs canada

P.S
try your hardest to not wear the U.S / core defensive cap when following point 2. instead wear a "bitcoin decentralised" cap

my reply is always
OK mr government spokesman. im installing CCTV camera in your wifes bathroom. as long as she isnt doing anything illegal you have no reason to object??

(excuse my stripper/women in shower examples, its not my normal content of comedy, but it seems to many bitcoiners that this comedy category sparks their imagination to understand the underlying more serious points)

for merchant tools like bitpay. they use unique addresses per payment already.


EG. if the stripper has a QR code tattoo'd to her butt.. your wife can easily find out the exact stripper which ruined the marriage just by QR scanning the ass of all strippers while they are pole dancing until th right address grinds up.

solution:.. pimps, do not let your sex workers get a permenent tattoo of an address they are stuck with for the rest of their lives


the whole bip 70 is not a security flaw

what it is, is when you are at a merchant shopping cart YOU (not the network).. YOU are displayed a QR code. which is not just a bitcoin address but  a bitcoin address with a lil extra.

(its the bitcoin URI feature)
EG
bitcoin:1R4ndQm9ir2761987q7k3VcALC8YQ?request=https://walmartstore.com/r/aBcdE&order=123&memo=bakedbeans&value=0.0001

YOU and only YOU see this. its not something published onto the blockchain.
your wallet can then auto fill in not only address to send, but how much and what your buying.

your wallet can then send the signed TX through the normal network(not extra URI info).. and/or
send the signed tx+URI data as a pushtx api call to the store direct so that you can memo them 'deliver by 4pm'

again this is for you and your wallet to know what its for, not something that gets identifying info locked into the blockchain

shops/stores use things like bitpay to accept bitcoin

bitpay then do PRIVATE O.T.C swaps for fiat away from exchanges, and then shops recieve fiat.

in short places like bitpay dont affect the public exchanges, and thus you wont see massive sell off of coins on public exchanges due to shops/stores activities

the 2 big qustions that keep coming up are
is bitcoin a bubble
is bitcoin an S-curve

the answer
its actually both...

depending on what your looking at.

if your only looking at the HIGH price of a given time. its a bubble.. the speculative hype and air which can inflate prices aswell as burst prices,
.. like a bubble.

but if you chart the price data and draw a line along the LOWEST prices long term you will see the true value. the part that no one is
stupid to sell below.

think of the long term lowest line as a water line in a bath.. its a point of resistance.. anything above that is speculative hot air that fluctuates (grows and pops)

we are still in the first decade of a many decade life of the coin. which based on things like coin supply (block halving events) and population saturation will  have the waterline in a S curve.. and then variable amounts ontop for the speculative bubble based on the small amount of coin moving on exchanges that ends up causing more volatile movements

anyway here is an image for the younger generation that can only understand images

so you qouted the prices.. well done. any kid can do that
but do you understand WHO or what those supports are. do you know any news beyond looking at a price chart and drawing triangles based on an arbitrary number that has no meaning (50day-200day)
do you even know why those numbers were picked. and also why they work for fiat but dont work for bitcoin

EG do you know the current cost to mine a coin to know what price pools will avoid selling below.. to know what support line mining pools sit at and would create. as their bottom line

anyone can just look at a chart and pick 2 random days of 20-30-50-100-200 days ago and create a triangle. but if you choose different moving average parimeters you will get different angled triangles offering different "predictions"

yea i know trend analysis is not about predicting the future but instead pushing out a slew of numbers hoping people with bots will sheep react to your scentiments for you to have a self fulfilling prophecy. but to put it bluntly

without screaming out prices of the past as your reason to predict the future. have you got any substance.

by the way
"close below $9000"
sorry but bitcoin exchanges never close. seems you grabbed a few FIAT buzzwords but have yet to understand that bitcoin is different

trading
ignore my use of market prices (8k9k) just used this post about the emphasis of small percentages and not putting all your funds()eggs into one order(basket)

another thing no one has pointed out

though there are 17mill coins that have been produced. and actually the number of coins lost is still unknown. (many ar long term hoarders but DO have access)

the real thing to point out is that the price is NOT based on the supply of ~17m coins..
the price is based solely on th few hundred thousand coins sat on order lines of exchanges causing support/resistance points depnding on how many coins sit at particular ordr prices.
again only a few hundred thousand coins, not 17m. cause the 'supply demand on exchanges'

bitcoin has solutions already

using a wallet that has a HD seed

take the 12-24 words(depending on wallet). and use that for your main hoard/savings

then the easy part.. change the final word
now you have a fresh wallet aswell. get the address of the new wallet and fund a small 'daily spend' amount on that new wallet seed address

then if under threat give him the 12-24 words where the final word is the new word..(dont give the main(original) word seed)

or if you are using the old legacy private keys. just have 2 private keys. one for main hoard/savings.. one for daily spend/small risk amount

---

more technical:
time locks do exist. multisigs too.
you can set funds that can only be spent in 10 days time using 1 key... but spent any time using 2 keys
but this is alot more involved in you having to do stuff to set it up and maintain the security (depending on how short the time locks you put on it)

so first idea is easier to implement, by just having 2 addresses. one with a small disposible amount your willing to disclose under threat

wild west of no due diligence (no KYB  (know your Business))

many ICO's claim to be fundraising for a company. if so then that company should release PROPER real world office location information
many ICO's claim to be insured. if so then they should publish insurance company that the policy is with and the policy number

that way people have something to research and to due diligence(KYB) before investing. and...
that way if things go bad investors have something to go to and slap a court order/insurance claim against them

if they are ICOing a decentralised no company coin. then be very prepared to lose everything. 99.9% of these coins have no real function and utility and 99% will not even flourish into actually being a tradable coin at release date.

so be careful