lol yep though the FTFY is addressing it at the technical(code) level.
i was talking about it FROM the users FLAWED/foolish vision of the 21mill cap.. to the realistic future of a blockstream developed 2.1quintillion
as the sentence you amended shows.. where i said 'instead of' because people think that there are/were only 21mill shares..

its about the foolishness of some people thinking 'if the payment utility is removed from bitcoin.. the rarity/scarcity of the "21mill cap" remains to give it value..'

which this topic and my post points out that the rarity is not fixed by making the units of measure sharable to 2.1 quintillion people instead of the flawed 21mill people mindset

anyone ever think that what bitmain is saying is actually just reverse psychology..

let people call his plan foolish and then....

 he reveals the punchline of.. well thats exactly what augustforkers are offering.... thus instantly making people slap themselves with a wet fish realising what the augustforkers are offering

HA HA HA HA HA

message:
"The particular proposal amounts to a 4MB blocksize increase at worst."

segwit is 4mb AT BEST as it requires every user to use segwit keypairs (not gonna happen) and everyone to do a certain X-in X-out tx to reach the 4mb buffer limit (not gonna happen)

message:
"Further out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or
incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners
to produce larger blocks at some cost. These proposals help preserve
the alignment of incentives between miners and general node operators,
and prevent defection between the miners from undermining the fee
market behavior that will eventually fund security. I think that right
now capacity is high enough and the needed capacity is low enough that
we don't immediately need these proposals, but they will be critically
important long term. I'm planning to help out and drive towards a more
concrete direction out of these proposals in the following months."

this was in 2015... so come on wheres the 'concrete direction' months after your 2015 message

dont be so sure that it wont happen.

bitcoin protocol has the units of measure as satoshi's not bitcoin...
bitcoin is only a user facing mathematical display.. for user comfort

but in actual fact the rule is based on satoshi's. yep the CODE is based on satoshi's

core devs are already thinking of moving from 2.1quadrillion satoshi's to 2.1 quintillion millisats

in short

imagine a bitcoin as a crate of banana's
in the past people only wanted to trade crates. limiting the shares to 21million shares of what would ever be in circulation. meaning only 21million people at most can own banana's.

then as prices rose people started buying the banana's individually, meaning 2.1 quadrillion people could own banana's

now core want to split the banana's to allow people to share out amounts of slices of banana's

at highschool-dropout level.
some people will say foolishly "but there are still only 21million crates available". but the reality is that its a share dilution where instead of 21million people can ever own/fight over something.. in the future 2.1 quintillion people can own a unit of measure of something.

research: rusty russel blockstream LN millisats

gmax.. go twist your words elsewhere

1. the usage of the blocks is limited by the programming of the system, by which this means the developers
...world average internet, cpu, hard drive and ram have no issues with 4-8mb.. so stop telling the world 1mb is all the network can cope with and should stick with.

2. the UTXO database is a separate database than the blockchain..
anyone can make a UTXO database have the same data whether its using a blockchain in a 1:3 template or a single 4mb template..

3. it was your crew that proposed the 'discount' as a discount.

anyway
to avoid bickering.. a single 4mb block with extra things like limiting txsigops to 4k or under, allows both native and segwit keys to fully utilise extra and real blocksize increase while mitigating the issues that segwit cannot solve

the arguments about the UTXO database are things outside of bitcoin protocol rules and block template designs so they can be dealt with separately at any time

P.S
gmax how about try to bring back a new fee priority formulae and stop the false pretences which have already pushed fee's up to silly amounts

in short he is saying

by removing the
'base:witness (1:3) block inside a block' and removing all the cludgy maths... then EVERYONE, meaning those who want to use segwit keypairs or legacy(old/native/traditional) keypairs can all sit side by side in a REAL 4mb block and all have extra space to happily play in.

segwit only functions if people use segwit keypairs. the formation of a '1:3 block inside a block' to fool the old rules does not itself solves the issues segwit falsely promises to fix.. it involves the people using segwit keypairs afterwards that causes any change.


but even those segwit keypairs have to in a '(1:3) block inside a block' rely on getting their partial transaction data inside the base(1mb) area. which automatically reveals that segwit hits a few problems.

so by taking away the "base:witness (1:3) block inside a block" and just having 4mb block.. everyone gets the cake and gets to eat it

lol

and yet the august forkers. who orphan off oppositing blocks are also going to be "pre-mining" their own chain until they can kiss enough ass to get others to join them

seems theymos cant even see the same crap happening for the crap he supports also,

all in all expect summer-autumn to be a clusterf**k of orphans, double spends and other issues.. all to try pushing segwit in before november...
smells like BScartel (Blockstream Barry Silbert) are getting desperate to try getting segwit activated one way, or 3 other ways

when exchanges dont have the coin/fiat at hand to cover the fake trades they played prior, and suddenly there is an influx of new trade that causes an exchange to worry about too many people trying to withdraw. many exchanges 'coincidently' go offline while they cough do maintenance.

if the rates of coin/fiat change too drastically the exchange then explain the maintenance is due to a cough hack cough.
if the rates of coin/fiat change settle to a level that an exchange can handle then they pretend its business as usual

this has happened many many times

i do find it funny how coinbase invents GDax but pretends it 'cant cope' with demand.. even when demand/activity is less than the days of mtgox in 2011-2013

even core devs deem 8mb ok..

technically there can be issues due to packet handling at 32mb..
then some compromised to 16mb..which the brought up debates about "average internet bandwidth while still doing normal tasks like netflix"

and so many done speed tests and found 8mb is safe. yep even the ones crying about the chinese firewall found out 8mb is actually ok
they also came to this judgement and non-fud realisation that tech has moved on since 2009..
we are no longer in raspberry Pi 1.. its raspberry Pi3 era now
other things like libsecp256k1 and other things have bring the 'happy acceptance' level up

however with core being extra anal accept 8mb as safe but PREFER 4mb .. not because 4mb is minimal happy acceptance, but because they want to be anal with their spoonfed limitations.

oh and before you go back to reddit to find a new scripted fud to spout.. you might want to actually run a node and realise that its not as painfl as you think

that site is missing the most vital criteria of all

"merchants accepting.."

cant have store of value if you take away the real value part.. which is utility...
seems all you care about a greed of price

so from now on how about instead of talking about store of value, you use the term "greed of price" atleast then you are truly talking about what you desire.

fool
1. bu is not activated nor will ever activate unless there is consensus.. there is no BU coin..
2. if there is a proper consensus fork. then the majority survives..(because consensus wins).. so the minority will lose their value for holding onto their minority.
3. your not realising the barrycoin is the same BScoin as blockstreams segwitcoin... barry and blockstream are together.. its all bait and switch divide and conquer techniques just to try getting segwit activated sooner rather than later by pretending its 'options/free choice' when really its just a new bridge that leads to the same highway

emphasising the bit i emboldened for you

if you can get routed.. then yes. but there is no guarantee..
this is why i said some users end up being hubs with THOUSANDS of contracts connected, just to allow average joe to not need more than just a couple channels.

without hubs, users end up needing more than a couple channels to be able to ensure reliable routing.. (research 6th degree of separation theorum)

also if doing the hub style.. lets say EVERYONE was contracted to starbucks. so that it only cost you 1 hop fee to pay anyone.
1000 payments =$10 being eaten from the amount you deposited

but imagine it required hop style because not everyone was directly connected to starbucks.. and the routes were on average 4 hops apart
that 1000 payments would = $40 being eaten from your deposit amount.

...
also if you only deposited $180 in your contract to starbucks, you only have funds for 60 coffee's so only able to do 60 payments.
if however you were 4 hops away from starbucks. requiring payment more fee's per hop. you may only get 59 coffee's/payments.

worse.. if the route require 20 hops you make less payments/less amount of coffee's you can buy due to hop fee's eating up your deposit a little more.

...
in bitcoin there is a big difference between 'technically possible' and 'realistically possible'

TL:dr;
just having 1-2channels does not guarantee 'thousands of payments'
its dependant on how reliable/complex the routing is
how much funds you deposit
how often the channels open/close

other things to take note.
no one will be foolish enough to put their entire hoard into an LN channel.
no one will be foolish enough to lock their entire hoard into an LN channel for a year

blackmail, CSV revokes, and other issues of possible attack vectors can make people lose funds offchain..

what you find is that channels will not remain open for 12 months.(no one can predict spending habits of 12 months)
people will only for instance open a channel with starbucks HUB and deposit enough for maybe 1-3 months of coffee
so the reality would be

A pays (if onchain fee was $2)
$3 to open and close channels with starbucks to deposit $180 (to cover 3 months of coffee)
buying a $3 coffee once a day, 5 days a week for 3 months.. costs 60cents of fee for 60 payments
which average $0.06 per payment(average after including setup/settlement fee)

so all these 'best cases' are in reality
average fee being more like 10cents if used daily for a couple months
blocks required being 4-6 times higher than the 12month example. due to people wanting to move funds in and out every couple months.

infact its suggested that many merchants will want to close out every couple weeks.. not once every 12 months. which could mean blocksizes needed would be 26x more than the 12month utopian blocksize. which also would raise the average cost pr customer fee

EG $3 setup/sttlement + 10 weekday payments of coffee per fortnight =$0.34 average fee's
and
 it would require 3.4gb blocks for fortnightly channels (instead of 133 MB blocks per 12month channels)

IF that other person has multiple channels yes.. other wise there is no 'route'.
but remember to set up and close  a channel IS requiring onchain transactions

if its just A<>B
they all a and b can do is private trades to each other.. no one else....
as i shown in examples of other post, B would need to be more of a minihub, involving also connecting to C.. for a route to be possible for A to be able to pay C

this is also where the (hop/spoke/route) falls apart as it will cost people a payment fee per (hop spoke/route) to thank them for being part of the (hop/spoke/route)

what ends up happening is B may decide to be a bigger hub
A<>B
C<>B
D<>B
now A can pay D by only paying 1 hop fee to B
EG
A(0.0499)<>B(0.1501)
B(0.5)<>D(0.15)

then new users just contract/channel to B
E<>B
F<>B
and now A can pay E just via B, and only costing the 1 hop fee via B to get to E

---

last thing to add
in a hop method.. the average 'cost' is ~ 2-3 onchain transactions
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
C= 2 in and 2halves out (3)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

in a hub of a,b,c,d method
A= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
B= 3 in an 3halves out (4.5)
C= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)
D= 1 in and half of 1 out  (1.5)

so imagining a onchain fee was still ~$2  (a=$3

so lets imagine A wanted or wished that on average their fee's only cost (on average) $0.02
even if each hop was $0.01.. even doing 300 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.02
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

if A only done lets say 10 LN payments.. A's average would be $0.34
by including the setup and settlemnt cost

LN is a separate network
LN can only make payments to other people within LN (emphasis: people with LN channels)
this means you have to have a LN channel open, infact most will have to have more than one channel open if they want to do the (hop/route/spoke) method or have their single channel with a well established hub if they only want 1 channel
anyway lets explain the hop/spoke/route method.

EG
A(0.1)<>B(0.1)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)

now if A(0.1) wants to pay 0.05 to D.. and there was a 0.0001 payment fee

EG
A needs to pay B in the first channel...
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.1)<>C(0.1)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
B then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay C
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.1)<>D(0.1)
then
C then use their second channel and separate store of funds to pay D
A(0.0498)<>B(0.1502)
B(0.0499)<>C(0.1501)
C(0.05)<>D(0.15)

now if lts say E had no channel.. E could not be paid by anyone because he has no (channel/contract/route) to anyone else

hope this clarifies how LN works for the layman

---

now what you have to realise is that to set up these channels
A one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel
B two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
C two onchain TX to deposit 0.1 each into 2 channel
D one onchain TX to deposit 0.1 into 1 channel

so thats 6 onchain tx's to set up 4 channels
then to settle the channels at closing session
another 3 onchain tx's are needed..

thats 9 onchain tx's required for 4 parties to use LN........... (which requires ONCHAIN blockspace.. and costs ONCHAIN FEE'S)
yes while ln channels are active those 4 parties can do lots and lots of LN payments between each other.

but that does not mean that suddenly any new people (E) dont need a channel or more to be part of LN.

core has economic power?

last thing i read is that the exchanges would accept and trade both coins of any split that may occur.. so the 'economic' power is equal.

as i said in last post its more complex.
for instance if the BScartel only allowed their portfolio of exchanges to only allow deposits and withdrawals of segwit(AKA BScoin) .. THEN core would have economic power. but by exchanges allowing all forks to be traded. the ecomonic power is equalised

as for core having node power.. as of today cores nodes are empty flagging segwit without even having a node ready to make a segwit tx on the main net. (that will come as a later release after activation) so technically core has zero node power in true support of segwit. its just meaningless hand waving right now with promises of a proper version release after activation.

if you think that segwit tx's are going to occur overnight after activation. think again. even litecoin hasnt bothered to even get the segwit supporting pools to use segwit tx's. let alone the wider community..

all in all.. nothing is set in stone.. whether its
november-soft-segwit
august-hard-segwit
segwit-and-2mb-lagacy
1mb-legacy
dynamic-legacy

its still all up in the air, and going to be a clusterf**k of orphans for everyone.

bitcoin will only remain number 1 if
merchant services (bitpay/coinbase) stick with only offering bitcoin as the 'we accept' payment network for the hundreds of thousands of merchants around the world.

price is meaningless/temporary drama.. but if the merchant adoption flips over to another coin due to the payment processor (shoppingcart API services) then bitcoin will lose its number 1 status

some exchanges are already moving to mbtc right now. then later drop again to ubtc(bits)

where the fee is 'commonly discussed' as ~1000bit($2) per tx, instead of 0.001btc(~$2)
meaning people in conversation and website/app display visualise it as ~1000bit($2) per tx, instead of 0.001btc(~$2)

the logic would be that if price goes up.. the 'unit of measure' for everything goes down.


then when lets say btc price goes to $20k
the fee becomes ~100bit($2) per tx, (0.0001btc~$2)


then when lets say btc price goes to $200k
the fee becomes ~10bit($2) per tx, (0.00001btc~$2)

if you think that if BTC went upto $20k people would spend $200 a TX... then you might aswell call bitcoin useless
no one would spend $200 a tx

until the code is developed there is no consensus. any "flagging" done before there is code is just propaganda.
real consensus is about actually using an implementation that can do the job actually announcing it can do the job and wants the job
wasting months flagging for something that has no code available to actually do the function is an empty promise.

EG
imagine people al flag 2mb+segwit.. it gets the threshold needed. and then at the grace period. some a-hole in the BScartel releases 'the 2mb+segwit' but it has a 2mb activates in 2018 'as promised' ... but then(luke Jr style of bait and switch) drops to 500kb by 2019

..
so until there is actual CODE. a promise is meaningless