dont be so sure about that if core really went and pushed LN as the end goal of 100% user utility, rather than a voluntary side service.
CLTV is the X day hold(even after LN settlement confirms)
and
CSV is the chargeback(while funds are CTLV maturing AFTER confirm)


if people are using brainwallets (short length alphabet 'passwords' to create private keys, or bad random generators) then yes they can be hacked.
also if you re-use addresses a few times the 'randomness' of signature data can start showing a pattern.
also vanity addresses are weaker to (easier to brute force a vanity address)

which again is an issue for LN where everytime to sign a payment you are revealing a signature with the certain point of the axis, which with enough signatures can be used to find the pattern and thus find the origin point of the curve(the private key)

this is why you should never re-use addresses using normal bitcoin transactions. and why LN and other things are not completely fool proof

look no further than the hyperledger project

the concept is to have atleast 200 chains/ledgers that link to eachother. yes this means public keys will be linked to social security, tax, passport, medical records. but atleast people dont have to sign 20 registration documents for 20 services/entities.
they dont need to be "vetted" for each exchange/bank/service" because all that admin is done in one go.

so i can see funds moving more swiftly.. just not done anonymously. even tax returns become automated.
some may see the benefits of efficiency. but others will see the downside of permissioned services holding funds and rating/judging/knowing everything about the users/citizens.

personally i prefer bitcoin, but most sheep will choose to lock their funds into permissioned contracts just for less timewasting/admin headaches

its not about stealing bitcoin its more about these possible scenario's(top of list most relevant)
1. gangland protection blackmail
2. gangs have their own BTM's and destroying the competitor
3. gangs that lose value on a price dump and take it out on the BTM

hyperledger is FIAT2.0
blockstream are using bitcoin as the "experiment" messing with offchain/sidechain techniques to then hand those techniques to the bankers so that the bankers can have their 200+fiat interlaced and swappable chains(national currencies and other markets)

holding up bitcoin onchain growth just to let blockstream paid devs sandbox bitcoin to give time for hyperledger to overtake. is not helping bitcoin

fixed that for you

fee war:
140/byte - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
= 0.00063000 for average 450byte tx ($0.65c)
= 0.00031640 for leanest 226byte tx ($0.33c)

Cuba see a lean tx costing 6hrs36mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 13hrs minimum wage.
Georgia see a lean tx costing 6hrs36mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 13hrs minimum wage.
gambia see a lean tx costing 2hrs32mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 5hrs minimum wage.
egypt see a lean tx costing 1hrs2mins minimum wage. see an average tx costing 2hrs5mins minimum wage.
and so on

anyone see the problem yet

non-core implementations will only use CONSENSUS (try being specific, rather then using the 'fork' empty umbrella term) they do not intent to split they do not want to split they do not require a split they are not proposing a split. they want to use bitcoins consensus.

yep core have forked the chain. yep even Sipa caused a bug in 2013 which led to needing to roll back some blocks to fix his boo boo.

core have failed the community by not doing a node first pool second double consensus (hard consensus) because just doing a pool consensus single consensus (soft consensus) means the pools get to decide.
but even so, the smart pools/ethical pools will wait until nodes are happy even if nodes dont get a vote. purely because of the orphan risks if a bug pops up.

core want people to think its a core vs bu, king against king battle. when its not. its a COMMUNITY decision
there should be no king.. only nodes... who adjust based on the settings of the nodes. and the pools react to what the nodes will allow.

75% of the community are saying undecided or saying no (~60% undecided/ not keeping uptodate)
25% pool agreement
25% node have full latest running implementation

the rest are not uptodate or not decided either way (yes another 25% of nodes are 'compatible'. and 50% are 'acceptable'. but only 25% nodes are uptodate)

funny thing is even if nodes/pools did gather 95% pool votes, when it activates they still end up having to wait for another core release just to actually use p2wpkh/p2sh keys. meaning this whole give pools the power to vote first has issues. and even then its not an effective vote because nodes then have to re-upgrade to use the keys to see the benefit of the one time boost temporary gesture.

yep even with 0.13.2 people can still malleate transactions. even after activation at 95% people using 0.13.2 can still malleate transactions.
yep even with 0.13.2 you wont see any different to the transaction count after activation.

it requires another release and only those using the new 0.1x.x(whatever the number will be) after activation who move funds over to p2wpkh and p2wsh keys who are the ones that cant malleate. but if you use legacy p2pkh /p2sh keys you can still malleate. meaning that malicious people can still be malicious.

and seing that nodes take so long to remain fully uptodate with the latest version. getting it activated is not the end of the drama of low tx count or malleation.. its still going to take a while if ever to get the 'promises' core suggest.

yes every node and every transaction needs to be p2wpkh or p2wsh capable and used to give the tx count boost and malleation impossibility. anything less than 100% means not 100% fixed

1. CORE are bypassing node consensus to make the rules have upto FOUR mb weight WITHOUT node votes allowing/vetoing

2. other implementations USE NODE CONSENSUS where the nodes decide what they can cope with. and then pools react when there is consensus.

3. CORES main guys sipa, gmaxwell, matt corallo, luke jr(plus dozen others) are PAID by corporations. even gmaxwells/adam backs 'founded' business has MEMBERSHIP into HYPERLEDGER, which is the BANKERS fiat2.0 concept.

wake up to the hypocrisy of the scripts they get sheep to shout. when the real truth is that core are doing all the mis-deeds.

https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members <- general members - blockstream

admit it they get sheep to fear splits, and then tell sheep to beg non-core implementation too split.. yet non-core implementations refuse to split.
non core implementations want to use consensus. not splits.

just wake up

r/bitcoin script
1. script: "everyone shout out that you fear non-core implementations want to split the network"
2. reply: but they dont, they want to use consensus

3. script: "ok everyone shout that non-core SHOULD split off"
4. reply: now thats hypocrisy, but they wont, they want to use consensus

5. script: "ok everyone shout that they are giving miners the power"
6. reply: but they are not. core are giving the miners the decision power, by bypassing node votes.

7. script: "ok everyone scream that non-core want to take cores dictatorship away"
8. reply: but there should be no dictatorship, there should only be consensus

9. script: "ok call anyone hating core-blockstream a troll because we run out of misdirected scripts"

if you dont understand the tech, please learn it before replying. and i do not mean you have read their sales pitch glossy version. but done the critical small print understanding of what is being promoted

for instance if you dont understand multisigs where you are no longer just signing your own tx and sending your own tx, but requiring a counter party to sign off on your transaction. that is needing their permission..
without them you have nothing.
it has some advantages but also disadvantages. atleast understand and be honest about both sides.
also please understand CLTV and CSV and understand the REAL WORLD end user experience of these and how they compare to paypal/banks 'issues' of the same end user experience.


its you trying to undersell/ sweep under the carpet.
atleast try to think about bing helpful to the real community by informing them of exactly what they are going to be getting involved it. honest critical thought means more to people than stroking their sheep fur, telling them its ok to go to sleep

you dont need a bitcoin IRA
you just need a bitcoin JHI    - Just Hold It

bitcoin JHI - no middle men, no handing funds to strangers, no admin fee's, no worries of anyone running off.. you just need to hold onto it yourself

if you have fiat and want an IRA i see the niche.
but if you have bitcoin, normally best to just hold the bitcoin yourself

1. pools cant push for higher size blocks unless nodes can cope. meaning its not centralizing nodes because its the nodes that decide what the network can cope with and reject what they cant. stop reading the r/bitcoin doomsday scripts of 'datacentres by midnight' or 'gigabyte blocks by midnight'.. those doomsdays are fake and illogical, used mainly to scare sheep to run into the wolfs den

2. even funnier part of the dooms day is this stupid tactic "fear non-core implementations, they want to create an alt.." .. "other implementations want consensus which we wont give them. lets instead tell them to fork off to an alt"
i hope you see the hypocracy in those 2 statements.
EG "fear your neighbour, he has a gun.. oops he doesnt, so lets shout at him to get a gun and hope he shoots someone."


3. segwit offers pruned and other features, which dilutes the number of full sync SEEDERS
   segwit also with the sidestepping of allowing nodes to consent/ be ready, dilutes the FULL VALIDATION status
   sgwit also allows nodes to not have to store signatures(-nowitness), which dilutes the FULL VALIDATION and FULL SYNC SEEDING
   segwit is the primer for LN, which if people are locked into LN they wont see need to run a full node 24/7, but run a LN node instead. diluting node count

core dont care. because they have changed the topology of the network with FIBRE being the gatekeepers (upstream filter) of the network. meaning CORE FIBRE nodes do the validating, which in their mind the other nodes are not required (which is centralizing the data to their 'brand'). yep they are even saying after segwit activation and they finally release a full segwit implementation (including P2WPKH/p2WSH wallet) that fibre/segwit nodes can 'whitelist' other implementations that are downstream but those downstream are not required to be gatekeepers/ the security guards of the network..
which again is about pushing core nodes to be at the centre of the network and other implementation left on the outer edges if they get lucky to be whitelisted.

try reading the documentation and code whilst wearing a critical /logical thinking cap. and not a fanboy cap.
dont thing about the limited benefits, promotional sales pitches.. look for the fine print limitations and realities.
EG
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

there we go
a more practical use of needing to pay into a sofa.
i found it hard to think of a real reason to need to pay a sofa in your own home, i was more thinking about the concept of 'saving up' the pennies to replace the sofa after a decade of ware and tear more so than the exercise idea.

im sure there are many commercial needs to paying into a chair.. like the movie/music venue seat reservation idea.


where as the in home "the internet of things" or "connected living" is more about the electrical gadgets around the home, rather than the fabric based 'furniture'.
like instead of just turning your heating on. you trigger the heating by paying X to get Y amount of heat for z hours.
or your fridge connects to your favourite online grocer to automatically send a shopping list and request for delivery based on the items you have used

this forums webmaster? (i think u misspelled) who begged for donations years ago to update this forum... but years later its the same thing.
if he cant update a webforum. dont desire him to supervise anything, no matter how close of a buddy he is to the blockstream crew

paying 10cents on visa to sit on sofa for an hour costs you 50cents in fee's.
paying 10cents on paypal  to sit on sofa for an hour costs you 30cents +3% in fee's.

note the way bitcoin core devs are loving the fee war. bitcoin is currently having the same drawbacks.
core next want to introduce commercial services(LN hubs) to lock funds into permissioned contracts with confirmation maturity (3-5 day rspend delays) and revoke codes (chargebacks)..... (facepalm)

core devs caused the fee war just to escalate the need for permissioned contracts, knowing LN hops will be expensive so people end up using commercial LN hubs

i was speaking more in general about input vs output. in previous post.

however the "scripts" area of an input is usually the signature

this will however change a bit if/when segwit activates and people use segwit style transactions

blame core..

pools wont move forward until there is good node validatability.
core decided to avoid getting nodes to update and show validatability.

core shot themselves in the foot thinking they could bypass security.

with a GOOD dynamic block code. the NODES.. emphasis NODES flag what they can cope with. and then when a confident majority of nodes can cope with more bytes. the pools would then ease themselves into it and weigh up the orphan risk as they test the water by making small steps BELOW the new acceptable limit ensuring little to no orphan risk for their attempts

in very simple terms

input contain transaction ID's and other data to locate where the funds came from. (lots of bytes needed) (plus value)
also requires signatures, which add on extra bytes to an input.

outputs are just destination addresses (not so many bytes) (plus value)

however output scripts can vary in length too if they are including contract conditions. but generally a input is longer than output due to need of more data to locate source of funding and show proof its spendable

however the input bytes:output bytes ratios will change once future features are part of bitcoin

LOL wow show a pretty picture.

please learn consensus.
nodes should have the power, not miners not devs.

its CORE that has avoided true consensus. but luckily thats why 60% of pools (not funded by same group as blockstream(DCG)) are waiting for nodes to have decided even if core think nodes shouldnt decide.

pools wont push for something that nodes wont fully validate and accept. (yes they can accept but right now 50% cant validate segwit)
but core think validation is not important hence why they are stroking the sheeps wool to say its ok for the sheep not to upgrade nodes.

which ends up leaving (right now 50%) of nodes unable to fully validate the new feature. which pools know is an issue.
it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second.

core dont care because they have FIBRE that make core the gatekeepers of the network (oops i mean upstream filters) where other nodes are less important and basically there just to relay and store data (in cores eyes)

---

but by doing a hard(node then pool) full consensus event.. would have meant while getting nodes to upgrade, those node users would have asked for core to have dynamic block code included(2 birds one stone event). which ofcourse core would refuse.

but by going soft, (pool only) half consensus event.. core are left waiting for the undecided pools to be confident about the node count of full VALIDATION, before pools will even flag to make blocks that include segwit.

cores motive.. if things go wrong in CORES strategy. blame the pools. if it goes right. core take the glory. (nice bait and switch)