most of the testing is just to establish a routte to send a single payment. usually in 1-2 hops,, they have yet to really get to the mayhem of their promises in indefinitely keeping channels open and also the fiction of cheap tx's

EG even the OP of the topic said getting a route isnt simple and many channels are needed (something i mentioned a few tims in many topics.. that hops dont work, that hubs are the only way) and meaning many onchain fee's to close and reopen when people go offline or run out of funds to be a middleman route. and many onchain fe's just to open the many channels to be a reliable hub

and also its only cheap if A needed to pay B. but if a needs to pay D so A needs B and B needs C to 'borrow' to D.. then C will wanna be paid a fee too.
and its not going to be often that a route is just going to be 1-2 middlemen fee's

imagine 5 connections is set as safe connectivity..

draw 9 dots and you will see not everyone is connected from 1 peer in one hop.(left side of image below)

yea only 9 people in the network but needing 2 hops to get to everyone with the ASUMPTION everyone is always online at all times and always has funding available.(right side of image above)

now imagine each of those nodes wanted to deposit $50 of their funds for routing.. ($10 per channel)
you might think wow the network is holding $450 ... but it doesnt mean $450 is at play all at one time indefinetly.
it means $10-$20 is at play at any one time, affecting only 1 middle guy..and when one side of a channel has 0 because they already been a route for someone else.. they are out
if $50 was at play at any one time, it would affect many middle guys. and once one side of them many channels are 0 because they have already used thier $10 alotments. their out

now this is a simply 9 node network and already there are limitations being spotted.
now try and draw 64 nodes 8x8 grid. and see how many lines(connections) are needed for everyone to be 2 hops from one another.

we are only talking about 64 users.
then try 1000 users only 2 hops away (1 middle man)

then work out what is the sweet spot is for how many conections are needed for 1000 people but relaxing the hop limit by saying 10 hops
(yes node A has now a bigger risk if 1 other node of a route goes offline it limits how many people it can pay. because it relies on many other as routes)

you start to see nodes just being 2 conction hoppers doesnt work and instead nodes having to be hubs with dozens/hundreds of connections in a hub/spoke model just to get a couple thousand people 'well connected

now expand that to 1 milion users.. now these hubs needs hundreds of connections and each channel(connection) needs funds locked in

now try 50million..
now try 200million

....
the dev's have not really thought through about the nodes needing to fund many channels to be "well connected" and the limitations that would bring
right now all they are doing is trying to make sure just 1 connection works to make single payments. they have yet to shock themselves about the issues of ongoing payments once funds per channel are depleted/users offline severing routes,

and also they have yet to even begine to realise the fund loss risk of HYIP(ponzi) scamming using autopilot
.. but hey. its only been the big PROMO future solution spread as utopia for the last 2 years... and even now people who havnt even looked into it beyond the reddit promo glossy paper.. still think they trust its going to b perfect and free and fast and without headaches and no limits

please runs some scenarios

some addresses are publicly tagged
https://blockchain.info/tags
scroll to bottom of pag in the link

lol

i remember the day when part of decentralisation was that anyone can and should look at how things work to ensure there are no trojans, no way to break the system and ensure there are no back doors.. but now it seems many just wanna say "you don't have to understand it.  That's a job for developers"
seems there are too many suck ups and not enough critics. no wonder bitcoins ethos is dying and LN (banking 2.0) is taking over.. too many centralists saying just trust the devs

so lets make LN simple to understand

channel (joint bank account requires 2 signatures)
open channel(bank deposit)
close channel(bank withdrawal)
CLTV(3-5 day funds held at withdrawal)
CSV revoke(chargeback)

how it works
when you deposit funds into a channel(joint account). the funds do not leave the channel while its open. what the system works as, is many joint accounts
imagine
Alice and Bob are married and they have a joint account[A-B]
bob has a mistress Christy and they have a joint account[B-C]
Christy has a husband Derrickand they have a joint account [C-D]

imagine they all decide to deposit $10 into each of their joint accounts
Alice puts $10 into [a-b]
bob puts $10 into [a-b] and puts $10 into [b-c]
christy puts $10 into [b-c] and puts $10 into [c-d]
derrick puts $10 into [c-d]

again remember the deposited funds dont leave the accounts(channels) while open
[a:10-b:10]    [b:10-c:10]    [c:10-d:10]

now if A wanted to pay D $3..
alice tells bob he can have $3 of [a-b] if bob uses $3 to pay christy in[b-c] if christy uses $3 to pay derrick in [c-d]
so it plays out like this
[a:7-b:13]   [b:10-c:10]    [c:10-d:10]  a&b both sign a tx to agree on B owning $13 of the $20(10*2) of the joint account
[a:7-b:13]   [b:7-c:13]    [c:10-d:10]   b&c both sign a tx to agree on C owning $13 of the $20(10*2) of the joint account
[a:7-b:13]    [b:7-c:13]    [c:7-d:13]   c&d both sign a tx to agree on D owning $13 of the $20(10*2) of the joint account

now D has got $3 due to A's request to pay

thats about as unbiased as i can be without highlighting the pitfulls and limitations of usage.. and it didnt take 4 pages

you cannot base combined taxes by using the market cap

the market cap is a meaninglss number.
let me explain

if i make a coin with 1 trillion coin cap, and buy just 1 coin for $5
the market cap becomes $5trillion
yep market cap becomes $5trill even though only $5 was actually spent.

now if i sold that single coin for $6
the market cap becomes $6trillion
yep market cap becomes $6trill even though only $11 was actually spent.

now when it comes to taxes. i only gained $1, so 20% of $1 is 20cents... yp my tax bill is only 20cents
as for the other guy that bought my coin. he is currently at a tax deduct of $6 right now so he owes no tax

thus the whole markets tax is 20cents even though the cap suggests $6trillion(thus the op would wrongly suggest $1.2 trillion tax)
..

now back to the market cap of btc
when trades are done. the price moves not because ~17m coins are being traded at any time for th exact price. to then give the market a true value of bitcoin price * coin in circulation. instead the price moves because of small amounts of coins.

by this i mean there are no billions of fiat held in a bank to back up the market cap.
infact the entire market cap $amount can move by a trader simple having an order of say 0.001btc being traded

this is not about elair specifically.. but LN's protocol as a whole

i predicted this months ago.. and its not a 'bug'. but a limitation of feature based on the tech. thus not an easy fix(without lots of open/closing channels(onchain tx fee's)

even funnier is that LN devs still are not being honest that to move funds involves locking in value. and fiinding routes.
many keep promoting that its just a deposit into LN once and infinitely be able to pay anyone any amount risk free

but the truth is not what is being promoted
EG if all you want to risk in LN is 0.01.. but know just 1 channel aint enough, so think 5 may work.. thats 0.002 per channel. meaning you can now only send 0.002 for the only route that works, and then have to close the other 4 channels (more onchain tx) and then reopen more channels incase the one you currently have, the counter party decides to go offline.
yep sorry folks. its not a open a channel and close a channel in 2 years to save onchain bloat.

alot of people still beleive LN is the trustless, permissionless, unlimited, never needs onchain again solution. when the reality is that opening and closing channels because route crash/counterpart offline/change their acceptable payment levels.

if only people became critics to actually mention the pitfuls, thus actually try asking for something better and thus getting something that could actually solve things. then real solutions would actually mature and solve things sooner. and not just suck up to devs and promote halve truthes,

if its too expensive to trade. and has no merchant usage.. then its demand dies.
check out all the crap coins that cant buy a loaf of bread(random example) in the real world. but all have 21mill coin cap

scarcity is meaningless without utility/function.
emphasis check out all the crap coins with 21mill coincap

dont rely on scarcity as bitcoin saviour of value. otherwise your willing to say kill off utility/function because scarcity will push bitcoin up. reality is it wont. scarcity is meaningless without function/utility

scarcity is about supply.. function/utility drives demand. supply does not drive demand

commodities have a purpose. a commodity is a raw material used to create other products.
wheat can be turned into bread,.. oil can be turned into fuel/plastic

now this is the confusing part for some.
GOLD sits on 2 markets. commodities AND asset.
golds commodity value is its raw material state to the create electronics and jewellery

bitcoin does not share golds commodity value. bitcoin is not a commodity, emphasis bitcoin is not a commodity

now because gold has a commodity value, this gives it a value. and combining golds commodity(raw material) value with golds scarcity. and golds utility/function value as part of a circuit/jwellery(end product) gives gold an asset value

again. bitcoin has no commodity value. and thus it only holds value due to scarcity ethos/utility(trading) and merchant use for bitcoin to be an asset. emphasis bitcoin is an asset
emphasis. without real world merchant use. bitcoin loses its main aset value. (remember bitcoins first price push due to bitcoin pizza, then silkroad, then things like bitpay/coinbase shopping cart tools)

but if we take away bitcoins ethos/function by making it the expensive to use (tx fee onchain / high cost to open/close 2nd layers) then it loses its utility.. if its no longer useful to buy things in the real world... all thats left is scarcity..

so lets talk about scarcity alone
now.. i have a dog that does 2 poops a day. in 2 years it will be trained to do 1 poop a day. and as it gets older, it starts getting constipated and only does 1 poop every couple days.
in its life thats about 2500 bags of dog poop will ever be created by my dog.. wh wants some.... no one.. but wait. its scarce. so why no demand(sarcasm)

in short. scarcity alone is meaningless. something is not an asset just by being scarce.

demand due to scarcity alone is meaningless. there has to be function/utility of the item for there to be demand. otherwise its just crap..
as shown by all the crap coins that get dumped once people realise theres no utility. even if the coin has faster tx times and lower fee's there is no real world function/utility

bitcoin had/has many utility/functions. but slowly its losing those abilities. so dont always rely on 'scarcity' as the sole thing that will keep bitcoin prices up.. because otherwise you might well just be holding a bag of poo..

we need to concentrate on not letting devs destroy bitcoins ethos. not letting regulators turn it into fiat. not let users turn it into a gimmick via sounding like a ponzi get rich scheme.

- providing HONEST informations about bitcoin can make it improve. even bad honest info (avoid scam X, dont use LN unless your prepared to lose)

- joe blogs from hobo town cant really do much to convince big business to join.. but if each person gets their own LOCAL stores interested. the pebble in a pond effect from many people will create waves

- dont just inform newbies about investment. teach the functions/utility of bitcoin, including the drawbacks and limitations. because if you only shout "buy bitcoin double your money" all your saying is use bitcoin as a gimmick to then run back to fiat(you'll sound like a ponzi advert)

LN is trustless? seriously. stop reading the reddit promo material and actually do research.
1. you need to trust the other parties wont blackmail you for signatures.
2. theres a thing called autopilot that can send YOUR funds without your consent,
3. because its offchain people can alter their node to hack your funds and then at the end change it so you sign first (they gain the revoke) so if you then try to send a double signed tx to the blockchain. they can then revoke YOU. meaning YOU get punished.even if you were the victim of fund hacks.
have you even bothered to get an explanation as to the 'dont put too much coin into LN mainnet because you can lose it' (advice LN devs gave themselves)

LN is permissionless? wow please do some research. stop promoting something that you have not researched
1. you keep trying to make it out as if its just a channel opening handshake agreement thats required like tcp communications.. its not
2. LN does need permissions. for every payment. it is NOT a PUSH payment system. (learn push payments)
3. even if you run autopilot. making you the human not the permission giver.. the channel counterpart still needs your nodes permission (learn multisig)
4. you cant just say 'hi im A im paying D' and thats it. B, C and D need to agree on it if you are using the hop of 3 channels earlier example to get to D
5. as for no third party. again learn multisig. then learn why they want to bring schnorr into LN toallow fund managers to monitor the channel closes when people go offline(yes it will be a thing)
6. nodes CAN exempt you from participating.. after all.. those core fanboys have proven that already when they showed the meme of an LN node they named Rogerver being left exempt from the network. ill give other examples when explaining fungibility next

LN is fungible? again, you must be joking,
1. when creating a route some route decide rules, such as not wanting to connect to nodes of certain value, meaning some funds are treated differently and not accepted
2. its like saying 'i only wanna channel with you if you hold a $50 bank note. sorry if you only have a $10 bank note, goodbye
3. then its like 'ok you got a $50 bank note, but if your not willing to swap it in daily amounts of $1 then i got no use for you'
LN is not as connect to anyone anywhere for any amount.

please i really do think you should do some research. i mean this sincerely. really look beyond the glossy promo material and actually research beyond their buzzwords.

and if you still think that LN is better than the fiat system research what CLTV and CSV actually enable as features from the prospective of users.
here is a hint.
CLTV=3-5 business day funds locked on wire transfers(closing channels)
CSV revoke= chargebacks
sound familiar to the fiat system

good luck in your research, have a nice day

firstly im not in any band camp... just because i detest blockstream and the crap they heve done. does not throw me into any other coins camp

secondly craig wright is a scammer
i have made many many posts highlighting that craig wright cant prov crap, doesnt own crap, is in alot of legal trouble and has alot of explaining to do to many investors he defrauded with his trusts and tax grants

but hey.. i have read your posts over the last year and you seems to have blind faith that core are the masters..
i think that maybe if you take a few steps back and you will see that instead of trying to push people into being conspiracy nuts and altcoin lovers. you will see that some of us are trying to defend the real ethos of bitcoin. which has been eroded away slowly over the years with all the distractions of things like craig wright and all the altcoin creations by saying they are attackers. purely to slowly hand more power to core to control and direct a roadmap

but hey. you keep on reading reddit and keep on spreading the buzzwords of the month. just realise that all your doing is pushing people away that oppose one team.. meaning pulling only one team into the lead.. (definition of centralisation)

slow? pfft. it was only december/january it had its OUT OF PLACE / UNNATURAL all time high..
regain? again it was out of place, un natural
dont treat a spike as "the norm"
dont hav price charts open at a 3 hourly zoom, waiting and checking several times a day for that top price to return like its something that always existed that has just temporarily left the building for lunch


smart traders do not care about the all time high. thats just speculation bubbles and volatility.
whats important is finding the lows. and if lows of today do not go lower than lows of 6-12 months ago.. that is the true win for traders.

while small minnows are waiting to double their money waiting patiently for the next all time high to be double the price the minnow bought in at...
sharks and whales are chomping on small and repeated 1-5% movements. which if you add them up turn into doubling funds in less time the minnows wait for.

looking at different resistance points.
mining had a cost resistance point at ~$8000... which got thrashed and pools/miners reacted at the start of march by holding off on adding hashpower..
but it seems a month later on the 30th of march their mindsets changed. some pools decided to reduce thier hashrate due to costs.. while other pools have put their pedal to the metla and actually increased their hashrate for the first time in a month.
so something seems to have stired their speculation to have made them react.

as for the price resistance point of day traders. past lows had a ~$6000 resistance. and this has been tested hallf a dozen times but not got below. so it seems we might be close to seeing the day traders give up trying to test the low and accept that above $6k is a good safe bet for the new bottom.. and then work up the courage to start spculating the bull. to then test the highs

only time will tell, but it wont keep bouncing around the $6k-$8k forever

funny part is
when a user sells crypto to get AUS$10k/US$7k and withdraw's it to a bank account..
the users own bank see's that the account holder has received 'suspicious amount'...

so the authorities will get the exact same report about the person even if the exchanges were not involved. purely because the bank account of the user will do the reporting.

banks already have the ID of account holders. so if exchange does a withdrawal of AUS$10k to Joe blogs with a comment 'sell of cryptocurrency'
what the bank would report is the exact same info about joe blogs as what the exchange would report.. 

coal, oil, gas generation of electric has costs. and the more that is used the more it costs. plus its not environmentally friendly or sustainable

solar generation of electric has cost and time limits. where it can only generate for an average 12 hours a day. but is limited to the amount of panels set up on land. its ok for low use, but when large peaks of usage occur quickly solar cannot cope

wind generation of electric has costs and weather limits, where it can only generate acertain amount at low wind and certain amount at high wind. aswell as the limits of how many turbines are set up on land. its ok for low use, but when large peaks of usage occur quickly wind cannot cope


where as geothermal is more stable 24/7 generation of energy. infact it costs geothermal companies more to switch off some of its gnerators when demand is low. so they prefer to have them all running. and thus offer a constant supply. this is why some miners love iceland. they can calculate how many ASICS they will manage month by month and set a contract to buy electric by the month/year. knowing the electric supply will be constant and stable (unlike solar/wind which can fluctuate) and is environmenally friendly(unlike coal/oil/gas)

if the crypto they want to advertise is a scam coin ICO that has no REAL 5-year sustainability plan.. screw them. let them be banned

places like google/facebook/twitter should not be held liable for advertising scams. so its these social media's rights to refuse to advertise scams that can make them liable.

.. also..
bitcoin didnt need advertising, didnt need to pump and dump, premine,
bitcoins ethos and ideology alone promoted itself without the help of tactics that scammy ICO advertise

real funny part is..
if a ICO owner thinks that not being able to advertise will lose them money. then they have no clue.. after all. their premine is THEIR MONEY. so they are not losing it if they are the ones creating it.
if they value THEIR coin so much. they can hoard THEIR coin and then find a real purpose for their coin to then have real demand via the purpose. not via a pump and dump

1. the bitcoin whitpaper is no longer relevant to todays protocol.
2. the rules have changed
3. the development is centralised to one team (distributed but not decentralised)
4. yes money is not the same trusted thing it was 50 years ago. not since it lost its gold swap promise
5. think about why people hate fiat, since it started losing all the original ethos/features of 50+ years ago. and you'l see my point about bitcoins mutation(offspring) losing the bitcoin ethos too.. making bitcoin brand no better than fiat in the end
6. you admit you are not your dad, even if you share the same surname...... think about that. your only the same in namesake only

sticking with your family analogy
to me, i care more about the heritage and the honour of what family name MEANS. it seems. as long as you continue having offsping(mutations) and the name passes on you dont care what it gets upto or what disregard to the families honour it may have.

seems too many have the mindset of 'screw it let a team own the protocol, as long as the brand name continues we dont care about the utility or function of the token as long as the brandNAME stays popular by advertising it, we can kill its utility/function...
... now thats exactly how governments dealt with FIAT 50+ years ago, people are duped into thinking a dollar today is the same dollar as 50 years ago, where people are duped into thinking fiat holds the same values, trust, etc.. which we all know is not the case

but the real thing i hate is over promising and under delivering.

as HeReUK points out about the insecurity of not using the blckchain. if its not logged on the blockchain. then there are risks about trust and other issues. and yes LN has risks and trust issues too. its not trustless, not permissionless, not immutible.. oh and its not fungible. just like paperwallet swapping offline is not trustless(yes i planted reverse psychology and he fell for it).
and as HeReUK says, whether he realised he was contradicting himself or not.
"some other forms of communications channel as a means of data exchange."
bitcoin does not need the internet. it can function on a completely separate network, without TCP

but thats my rant over about your meandering away from the fundemental point of the topic.
bitcoin could have retained its ethos and not slowly via misdirection lose all its promises (like fiat lost) to evolve as a network of multiple teams using consensus to unite the community. rather than avoid consensus and do the whole opposition deportation (controversial bilateral fork).

any way.. if your interested in how to rip people off and get free funds from people via LN. ill leave this here for you as just one example of LN flaws
P.S purple, red, green and orange are all 1 person(1 person, 4 nodes) attacking blue to double their money.

  
thre are many other flaws. like because LN doesnt rely on community auditing of payments while channel is open.. LN user(B) can tweak their node to get user (a) to sign first. but then B refuse to hand over B's signature. thus blackmailing A into broadcasting a older tx in the hopes of getting something. which B then gets the right to send out a tx he just signed to revoke A and to activate the penalty against A..

i could go on
i seen LN as a small side service for a niche use case and not as the be all-solve all solution to scaling. and i dont see LN as a fit for purpose tool even for that small niche right now.. it has too many risks..
which is why im not a fanboy that over promises over promotes and suggests its the best thing ever, when its not.

but hey
ill stick with my opinion that bitcoin(the promise/ethos/function/purpose) has deminished. and you stick with your opinion that the promiseless BRAND still lives..
but atleast you should accept that they are completely different things

decentralisation has died, long live distribution

the commodities market gamble the price of wheat.... yet muslims have bread
driving a car is a gamble of having an accident.. yet muslims drive cars
forex trading is the same gamble. yet muslims use money
having sex is a pregnancy gamble. but muslims try the 'pull out' method alot

unless your stood at a poker table shouting all my sats on red
unless your a day trader
its not a true 'gambling' scenario

atleast the tooth brushing idea thought outside of the box to reduce risk of fake 'mining' by having ways to check a task is actually done by a sole individual

seems better than an idea last year about a fitbit 'jogging' miner.. which ended up with people just selotaping their fitbit to their ceiling fan to fake movement for free 'points'.

my opinion is that the january drop was just speculation bursting from over hype.. just like 2013

as for now its not investor confidence. but ico scammers exiting back to fiat plus a mix of day traders testing the lows to find where the new bottom resistance is, to then go to bull

blockchain its the technology....

things like commodities, assets, financial tokens or anything that has a financial value is a currency thus if that is 'traded'/transacted using blockchain then it would be classified as cryptocurrency


cryptocurrency is the type of 'data' (of financial value) that is put on the blockchain

however if there was a blockchain that just stored chapters of a book, or patient hospital notes that had no financial value.. then although its data is distributed on a blockchain. that data is not cryptocurrency. its just data