agreeing with danny that ultimately there is a 0.5%-2% BLOCKS get orphans.
but to clarify
so those tx's in that block do return to being unconfirmed which is a temporary issue because sooner or later they are added to a new accepted block.

however there is a
example of where transactions are not added to the next block could be causes such as
plus other factors

so the ultimate worry(in regards to transactions) is alot less than 2% and far less than 0.5%(these numbers are about blocks, not tx's). and more so in the 0.004% risk area.  not ever getting confirmed.

---

also agreeing with danny..
in a normal no drama day (no new soft/hard fork event activation or high orphan rate)
6 is usually the maximum.

the only possibly time to think about waiting 2 hours (12 blocks+) would be when something controversial (high orphan count) is occuring, which is usually only a once every couple year event, so it should not be wrote as if its a normal expectation.. to think about daily...
 but maybe wrote as a sidenote to people to expand the confirms they usually wait for if the blockchain is in the middle of a hard/soft feature upgrade that appears to be controversial on the activation day

kind of like saying..
you dont need to boil your water every to want a drink, but if you have precious children you could wait for the water to boil if you worry about their health. but maybe when there are some water pipes being replaced in the water network every couple years, then get more concerned about doubling your efforts

nope because they are dropped unless there is only a couple hours left.
also CLTV allows confirmation and then locks funds from being unspent after (like the block rewards 100 confirm maturity)

thus mempools wont fill up with tx's waiting a day.
people either pay up to get priority.
or
their come back later and rebroadcast when matured/aged
or
they use ln as a voluntary service.

neither side wins..
rules stay the same until consensus is met.

learn consensus

fun fact
segwit is not active
fun fact
segwit if activated will only offers the discount if the funds were actually using a p2wpkh addresses...
fun fact
not everyone will use them

learn consensus
there would be only one chain. and NODES decide the rules... not pools, not devs.

one chain that the limits change when NODES signal they can cope (meaning no 'datacentre by midnight/gigabyte by midnight' doomsdays)
then pools secondarily start making blocks to the size the node consensus agrees to.

anything that the nodes dont consent to because devs have bypassed consensus would get orphaned.
less consent
(lower consent=more orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)
(higher consent=less orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)

what if there was a formulae that NEVER gave priority unless someones funds were aged atleast a day or they added a CLTV maturity period of a day.
also where the more bloated their transaction was or the more they wanted to bypass the 1day delay to respend sooner would cost them dearly

EG where those genuine/moral users that want to spend more then once a day can save some costs using the voluntary side services such as LN.
while leaving malicious intentional spammers who would refuse to use LN as it doesnt serve their malicious intent, left waiting or paying alot

this topic is about bitcoin blocksize growth.. which is about consensus... you can meander your posts into being about personal attacks all you like.
you can fake it all you like that your the victim,
but atleast spend 30 minutes learning about bitcoin.
learn consensus vs bilateral

here is the blockstream CTO demanding non-core implementations split. and him proving they dont want to. the same blockstream CTO also thinks splits are good

here is a blockstream defender with no clue about how bitcoin works, or knows the term consensus. sounding desparate to try getting non-core nodes to split.


and now lets get back to the blockstream paid core devs.. they are are only 'team' that bypassed real hard consensus to give miners the power.. no other team have done this.
only blockstream paid devs decided giving miners ultimate power was good.by going soft. yet they cry like they are the victims

so much fake propaganda, but soo litte proof they understand the basic concepts of consensus.

those defending blockstream are getting desperate.

all i ask is they learn the world consensus. and understand that the community want consensus. its only the blockstream defenders that want the network to split.

it is only the blockstream defenders happily giving the power to miners


core fans and paid devs are the only ones asking about splitting the network. no one else

segwit does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys
segwit does not solve intentional quadratics,  malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys

LN does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use LN hops or hubs.

the only way i can see that will sort out the fee war and the intentional real spam, without much drastic action is to introduce a new "priority formulae" that actually does a proper job of sorting out the spammers from the normal users

first please learn the difference between consensus and bilateral splits.

then you will realise soft or hard both have best case consensus and both have worst case bilateral.

when mentioning hard. in simple terms is NODES first then pools follow
when mentioning soft. in simple terms POOLS first then NODES follow(if they choose to want to become fullnodes again)

soft gives pools too much power.
hard does not give pools too much power.

please learn the basics. it doesnt require knowledge of C++ to learn these basic concepts and terms. which makes things easier for you.
it has been months since i first asked you and your buddy to learn the basics which should have taken 20-30 minutes to grasp.

why are you not bothered to learn about bitcoin?

CB yet again falsely suggesting non-core want to fork

last month it was
"no its dangerous they should not fork" - they never were going to anyway
now this month
"hurry up and fo a fork" - they never were going to anyway.

please learn consensus CB.

so
satoshi qt the original tribe.. then in 2013 another tribe within the pre-existing tribe starts, call it core.. which then tribals off again in 2014 as blockstream.. with 'white chief poking-bear' as tribal leader
then label the dissenters (those that are not core /blockstream but were old qt) as the invaders is immoral.

i think CB doesnt understand the word ironic, otherwise he would realise he is defending the immoral tribe he tries to describe.

why is it blockstream defenders play the victim card by doing the exact thing they point at others. especially when its obvious that al they care about is tribal leaders and not the whole bitcoin community

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
if you need someone else to sign a transaction.. say hello to 'permission'
also
if you need a hopper to agree to be part of a payment.. say hello to 'permission'
meaning its no longer permissionless.

lastly due to the costs of 'hops' vs 'hubs' it will naturally turn into people saving funds by using hubs.

oh and CB, please learn CLTV maturity (resembles 3-5 business day delay for end user experience)
oh and CB, please learn CSV revoke (resembles chargebacks for end user experience)

there goes CB yet again throwing down the

not verbatim: 'bitcoin mainnet should not scale onchain because billions of users by midnight.'
its much like saying in the 1900's cars should not be built because billion cars by midnight..

firstly. rational thought.
bitcoin wont have billions of users overnight. infact bitcoin wont have billions of users over decades.

a rational thing to think of is about 5% of the world adopting bitcoin naturally OVER DECADES
meaning it can scale.

if people think bitcoin is going to be the 'one world currency' and no other currency is going to exist then say goodbye to freedom of choice and say hello to bitcoin just becoming as corrupt as the IMF

instead think of it as just rationally taking a good healthy spot as one of the top 5 "nations"(communities)
think of it as being an open choice to have as a secondary currency to their own national currency.

then realise it wont happen overnight.

anyway back to the topic at hand.

here is another possible thing.. if we imagine a high take up of people wanting to be locked into LN for genuine reasons

imagine you are a multiple spender and you want to use LN.
you are not going to rationally see any benefit to run a full node all day long.

you will end up using a possible LN lite-node. that just holds the utxo of the addresses you are part of (you and counterparty)
diluting the full node count because less people use/touch mainnet 24/7 anymore

---

bitcoin core. meant to be a full node.. but offers pruned, no witness and selective black/whitelisting of nodes including turning on/off listening mode.

meaning instead of just running with full data. they are allowing nodes to cut off supply to other nodes, thus diluting the amount of full nodes to seed/sync data from. because they either refuse to connect or they dont hold all the validatible data.

which again is another failure of all these features causing less real full nodes.. and just a mis-tangled network of 'relay' nodes downstream from the upstream FIBRE network as the real full auditors (blockstream centralised network)

which itself can cause less people to want to be full nodes because although their pc can cope with it. they dont see the real gain/need

LN should be a voluntary service for those who NEED to spend multiple times an hour/day/week.
but keep in mind.
malicious spammers will
1. avoid using LN when repeat spending every block, because their obvious intention is to spam onchain so why use LN.
2. avoid segwit p2wpkh tx's when they make bloated quadratic tx's because their obvious intention is to spam onchain so why use segwit keys.
3. avoid segwit p2wpkh tx's when they want to malleate because their obvious intention is to spam onchain so why use segwit keys.

so segwit and LN is not solving malicious user spam. it is just solving ethical users to have a service to help the network.

in short intentional spammers will still do what they do. and so segwit and LN does not solve malicious users

the reason people are blocking it. is because it doesnt stop malicious users. but blockstream are doing this crap under false pretenses to try pushing ethical and honest people into their centralised commercial public permissioned hubs. (because they know private permissioned LN hops are more expensive). because blockstream need to start generating revenue to make returns of $90m+ to investors

halting true onchain growth to force ethical moral people into LN hubs is not good for ethical/moral people if the real intention is just about blockstream messing with bitcoin for financial gain

LN as a SIDE service. much like using coinbase merchant tools, bitpay merchant gateway, xapo or bitgo multisig/escrow store...
it has a niche but we should not be considering LN as the solution to scaling.

LN's technical issue preventing public release is not actually the need for segwit. LN's issue is the 're-use address dilemma', which still needs to be solved

we NEED onchain natural growth for the majority of users to appreciate the true meaning of bitcoins ethos

---

sidenote if LN does fix its address re-use bug(main concern)
then we can start thinking about the whole how do we get people to be rational. EG if they are wanting to spend more than once a day, they can use LN. but if using it infrequently they stick to the bitcoins mainnet. without being hit by huge costs. for the rare once a day/week/month use

im currently running scenarios about different 'priority' formulae that favours lean transactions and transactions that dont spend often
some scenarios/formulae im looking into including using CLTV maturity as a way people gain 'priority points' if they CLTV maturity lock their funds for ~24 hours to show they dont want to spam every block. where costs are incurred if they want to bypass a once a day spend without using LN.
thus mitigating most spam and costing people if they are desperate for that odd occasion of needing to spend a couple times a day without using LN

if the only thing that concerns you is the FIAT price of $2000, as your exit target. your missing the whole point of bitcoin.

to summarise this post.

imagine alice has 2btc in a standard p2pkh address unspend (1AliceAddress : 2btc -unspent)
imagine bob has 2btc in a standard p2pkh address unspend (1bobAddress : 2btc -unspent)

when going into LN
all that changes is the address holding it.

thus alice has 2btc in a LN p2wsh address unspend (3AlicebobmultisigAddress : 2btc -unspent)
thus bob has 2btc in a LN p2wsh address unspend (3AlicebobmultisigAddress : 2btc -unspent)

its still 2 unspents whether on people own personal permissionless addresses or in a multisig permissioned address

---

rationally we are not going to get 500million people over night, nor 7billion people.
today we only have 0.026% of the population. rationally we should be thinking that 5% of the world population may use bitcoin (making bitcoin one of the top 5 nations) but this wont happen over night, expect natural slow adoption over DECADES.

even if we get to less, say 0.05% of world population. knowing that there are 200 countries in the world still makes bitcoin as good as a nation.

but if we have 5% in a few decades thats more like 500mill(total world pop gets to 10bill) at most realistic TOP expectation.

remember. there are old people in the 99% club that are going to just stick to fiat. because they cant cope with technology
remember. there are children that are just not old enough to have a bank account.make an income
remember. there are unemployed/disabled people that are reliant on fiat social security so they dont have any disposable income to throw at bitcoin

so only expect 5% at most world adoption. which is still higher than world adoption of gold as a asset store, emphasis happening over DECADES, not night.

---

in short we should not halt natural growth now. using fake fear of 'billions by midnight' . allow natural onchain growth to begin so that it can scale over DECADES, naturally, rationally. and done so by the node consensus. not dictatorship king devs spoon feeding