many will say your cat (avatar) is blue. some will say its black.

ill say its tabby and definetly not blue

they can argue all they like about how many pixels in the picture are in a shade of blue and black.

ill still state that its a tabby cat thats definitely not blue. which hopefully if rational you would agree on

every mthod has a loophole.

again to pay a node (bitcoin theory this time not LN) requires a tx paying each relay..

blockstream already set up FIBRE as the hub... oops they hate it when i dont use gmaxwells buzzwords

blockstream already set up FIBRE as the upstream filter of the network topology

you lost your status. hmm

everything else you said i just laughed at, as you are not seeing rational thought.
i hope you get some back, because although i dont keep upto date on your life to know or care about your status..
i did recognise a little bit of open minded thought last year. and i truly hope you gt back to that point. even though it was a little short window

BU rules is anything under Xmb

1mb blocks are under Xmb.. meaning bu is doing as intented

classic/xt rules is anything under Xmb

1mb blocks are under Xmb.. meaning classic/xt is doing as intented

the non-core nodes are not rules of blocks must be over X.. they are rules of blocks must be UNDER X.. but where X is higher than core.

..

its basically the same as say 2013
blocks were only being built at 500k at the time.. but the rule was anything under 1mb is fine..

imagine if the Sipa LevelDB bug resulting in sipa and gmaxwell deciding to enforce blocks stayed under 500kb. (i know shock horror at the thought)
the other implementations would still accept blocks under 500kb because 500kb is still under 1mb

jbreher. ignore CB
he has no clue. he doesnt care about keeping bitcoin decentralized. he loves core as his king.
CB is so lacking in knowledge he doesnt even think bitcoin can run without a king.

for months now i asked him to just spend 20 minutes learning consensus.. he refuses..

LN uses mutisigs..
its not the legacy way of you make a transaction, you sign and you send..

its a joint party thing. like a joint bank account. requiring 2 signatures.
you cant move it without someone else.. = their permission required


its falsely promoted as 'independant multisigs'
imagine we had 5 people A,B,C,D,E

A and B connect up as a multisig..
B does more business, B also connect to C
C also connect to D
Dd also connect to E
 
A->B
B->C
C->D
D->E

for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E
^this above is the promotion people hop their funds around, .. and take a fee per hop if they are the middleman^

here is the problem and blockstreams known chain of events to gain them hub dominance to repay their investors

for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E
so A needs to pay B. and
A needs to pay C and
A needs to pay D to ensure A reaches E

costing A 4 hops

so what A does instead is when the contract times out. they avoid the hop method and find hub X which has multiple data streams to everyone.
A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

instead of
A-B-C-D-E

now A can travel to E just by paying X twice
a-> X
X-> e

much cheaper than 4 fee's of the hop concept
a->b
b->c
c->d
d->e

blockstream want to 'default' fee hop at, lets say y*100 and then offer hub at y*10 thus instead of costing a 500y using hops.. it would only cost 20y using hub

you will probably see that they twist the hop= y*100 because hops are less common so cost are higher.. many node users wanting income would applaud them for rewarding them more.. but that reward is a actually a twisted sales pitch of a punishment to make hops expensive and undesirable...
 
now blocktream becomes the hub and gets all the fee's to repay back the $90m investment. which they are getting desperate need to release ln before investors make demand..

lauda. take this as advice..

"If you don't like it -> leave." = silencing opinion

your correct moderator response should have been, something like
"you are entitled to your opinion, no one will delete your post or ask you to leave because of it"

but you instead. proved him right by telling him to leave. and also making it sound like he is trespassing. by saying
"its privately owned." rather than "its a public forum" or even "its a free speech forum"

you kind of insinuated that open opinion is not applauded but instead shown the direction to the exit

every system has a loop hole.
imagine PoS
if address contains 10coin it is staked enough to sign a block
200 people pool their 0.5 coin into 10 addresses of 10coin and ensure the syndicate leader is ethical to act as the pool to pay out reward
because there are 10 addresses with stake ensures they get more chance more often then one person of 10btc.
and also leaving those others not syndicated/pools with 0.5coin not getting anything.

imagine PoN (proof of node)
someone runs 200 nodes ensuring they get the chance more often than someone with 1 node

yes hubs are cheaper than hops.
im pointing out that all the r/bitcoin centralist blockstream defenders. are being sheep herded into thinking they can each get rich if they promote LN..
im pointing out they each wont.. only the hubs will.


the point is. LN is promoted to give people income.. reality they wont get it..
the point is. LN promoted as faster... but then tying them into permissioned contracts with fund locks and chargebacks.. making it no better than paypal2.0

now understand this. LN has a niche for certain businesses.. such as day traders, faucet raiders, adsense.
BUT
its should be considered a side voluntary service for certain niche users.
NOT
to be considered as the end goal for bitcoin where everyone needs to use LN due to how devs have halted and crippled any onchain growth purely to force users into LN contracts.

LN is just paypal2.0/visa2.0

remember bitcoin is suppose to be the permission-less open zero barrier of entry .. not visa2.0 with penalties and chargebacks(csv revokes)

you think that trolls that dont even run a full node and have been advertised to spam a poll.. has more meaning that the actual NODE count

now you see why im laughing.
you dont even realise the context of the stats.

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1441 (25.26%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1316 (23.07%)
 /Satoshi:0.13.99/ (117) (2%)

still around 50% im laughing at where your getting your 70% from

most things these days are prepaid.

move into a house deposit and 2 months upfront
phone/internet subscriptions. pay upfront for subscriptions.. but the calls / over the limit data allowance moves to following month.

down side of NO postpaid.. is if you run out of funds to cant use it. because they wont send you a bill after use, they just deny service

this is where in england the poor are put on prepaid electric meters. if they run out of money the electric switches off. they either use the 'emergency credit' (extra cost) or some end up selling their stuff to pawn brokers to get the electricity going until payday(incurring costs buying back their stuff after payday).

1. LN contract can expire. where the locktime is only say 2 weeks. people decide to not extend the contract but start a new contract connecting to a hub.

2. this is what blockstream are hoping for. so this is where they become X (a hub)

A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

instead of
A-B-C-D-E



contracts end. then just not reset up the hop method. people end up entering hub method


nope, because there is an attack vector. (i just didnt want to waffle the finer details)
if X refused to trade..
A would broadcast an old tx.. because X is refusing..
because E is angry that X refused. E request X to broadcast so that E can escape.
E then revokes X out of spite... for causing tension.
now all X can do is take frustration out on A..

other attack vectors are that X can cause such tension he makes the other (a,b,c,d) broadcast first then X can revoke ALL their tx's

imagine it this way.

you have a plane that can travel around the world in 10 minutes for just 2 cents.

then you have a company that wants to install teleporters in every house
they advertise that the data stream can hop between teleporters. and if someone teleported and it hopped via your teleporter you get paid

seems great right. travel around the world in seconds. and get paid if someone else teleported via you.. wow amazing.. (not quite)

---

the teleporter company bought up a group of plane engineers, and got them to engineer a teleporter.
now they want to tell the world that planes cant cope.
no more planes will be build and the ticket price of a plane should rise to kill off demand for a seat on the plane.

---

here is the picture though
for someone to get from A-E they need to pass through B, C, D because A doesnt directly connect to E via the data streams

so A needs to pay B. and pay C and pay D to ensure A reaches E

costing A 4 hops

so what A does instead is find hub X which has multiple data streams to everyone.
now A can travel to E just by paying X twice
a-> X
X-> e

much cheaper than 4 fee's of the hop concept
a->b
b->c
c->d
d->e

but by going through a hub instead of hops, now e,d,c,b wont get paid...
and thats where it falls apart.

the fake promotional sales pitch to get B,C,D,E to promote LN.. but ultimately B,C,D,E wont get paid when it actually plays out in reality, because everyone will want to save money and use hubs instead..

and thats the agenda. blockstream need LN for blockstream to be the hub to gathr fee's for their $90m investors

---

another thing..

before using the teleporter A needs to sign a contract. handing his life to X and enters the teleport buffer
if something goes wrong and say X refuses to hop.. A loses his life (because E caused a chain reaction that made X lose his life. which made A want to get out which forced X to revoke A's life to compensate X for the loss against E)

secondly if A decides he would rather not use a teleporter and tries getting out of the buffer early.
A is then in limbo for 3-5 days dematerialising and cant move... and if X objects to A leaving A loses his life

---

yes i have used a sci-fi analogy of how it LN works but if i was to use the more realistic bank2.0 analogy, the centralists would should hell fire comparing their commercial tool to a bank

if you think devs of any implementation should take the main role. you have already surrendered and missed out on what bitcoin is all about.

you have already given up your independence.
please learn consensus, redeem yourself

you are just not getting it.

no dev should be "in charge"
if you think devs should be kings. you have already surrendered and missed out on what bitcoin is all about.

the sheep being hugged by the wolf, making the sheep sing "bar ram ewe, bar ram ewe" because the because a little pig and friend of the wolf has told them to.

when a dictator pretends to want liberty. and freedoms. but then decides to build a wall and send certain people over the wall. you know something is bad.
when a dictator pretends to want to remove regulation. but secretly desires the corporations to make more profit at a cost to citizens. you know something is bad

do you even understand bitcoin or consensus.

you do know funds are locked to private keys.
an orphan/reject cannot steal your funds.

but blockstreams future feature mimble wimble can.

its worth reading and learning

but start at the basics of consensus vs bilateral.
as thats what im seeing most r/bitcoin script readers and blocksteam king defenders are mainly not understanding. plus it doesnt take years to learn. so theres no excuse to not spend just 30 minutes learning about consensus(majority agreement stay together) vs bilateral(walk in separate direction splits)

it was a reject.
it would have always been a reject.
it was handled and pushed the side in 3 seconds.
it would have always been pushed the side in 3 seconds.

by the way
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks
care to comment about the other rejects/orphans? that happen alot
oh wait they are core based. im guessing you wont comment