not the first time
and some devs did consider it, and adore the utility abuse of allowing it.
the thing is though by letting certain people try to hide it and not talk about it. it just ends up with devs getting away with it and repeating it, rather than fixing it

bitcoin used to be a proper open gated community allowing anyone to get involved where by the mass consent of the network instructed the ruleset. thats not the way anymore
bitcoin used to have many node implementations of different brands on the same network where the devs of each would promote their own proposals..
and after review and seeing the benefits other devs wanted it too.. thats not the way anymore

bitcoin used to be independently reviewed/scrutinised and critiqued where anyone can report bugs.. thats not the way anymore

now even core devs (the sole reference client) is closing off its gates with new moderation policy and contributor ranking systems. heck even the top half dozen devs do not propose code and ask the rest to review and "ack" it. instead there are many instances they just self merge their own code. unreviewed

so silence is not the solution

---

normal people did not need complex scripts and other cludge. it was businesses that wanted segwit/taproot.. as gateway features to use on alt networks.. and they sponsored devs to get it implemented before a certain date. which required pushing it in by any means possible

note all the date limits amd mandated dates.. and instead of listening to consensus from november 2016-may2017 of only 45% they pushed outside of the 45% consensus vote to force it in by faking a 100% unnatural flag

the pushed it soo fast that once activated they didnt finish the job.
 the devs that made segwit didnt strengthen the rules again after their bypass
at the GUI level they didnt even make segwits able to sign a message

there are other things. where the main devs do not trust segwit (sipa and luke jr still use legacy)
(even coinbase which is the vault for grayscale GBTC uses legacy)
and it was the DCG group (NYA) that sponsored and pushed for segwit.

then more businesses wanted taproot. yep normal people again dont need the complex scripts.

these features of segwit and taproot are for organisations on alt networks.
and as we know taproot is not a finished complete feature. its another flawed feature

these things were sponsored implementations. they were not wide community requested features
and the devs paid to get them to be activated into the network did not care about bitcoins security/utility. they just took the money

and thats the big shame on bitcoin

the softening of consensus in 2017 and 2022 are not about 'backward compatibility'. its about 'forward ease of change'
old nots do not fully verify data they have no rules for. so these new stuff are not made to be verified by older nodes. so its not backward compatible at all..
its just a softening and weakening of consensus to let new things in unchecked. which is bad security

regulating can be easy

by having "regulations at the gates"
EG innovate code that does many functions without jurisdiction within the multitude of networks / tokens created inside the city but where to get a stablecoin to trade with it..  you had to use an KYC regulated exchange. and then once having the stable coin you can then trade that for whatever you like in other unregulated systems within the cities ecosystems of multiple tokens..
where by just having the stable coin (without revealing name outside the exchange) shows you have been verified just to even hold/get the stable coin. thus no more need for validation elsewhere

you use pruned node with certain features turned off. thus you are not so secure.. you advocate for using a node that does not have many rules or blocks or require verification of data, too much for you to not be doing it yourself
if however you are using a full node that verifies and archives everything.. your just a hypocrite


as for the other stuff you pretend core done things to remain "backward compatible" then you admit that core done stuff that is not compatible with older nodes
so thank you for debunking yourself

and now that you have admitted that new core stuff is not actually compatible with old nodes STICK TO IT!

and then realise the actual changes of softening consensus.. as you now know is not about "compatibility" is about being an open gate trojan exploit to allow future stuff to be allowed in without the need of nodes upgrading

.. and no dont argue with yourself by playing ping pong tennis about your changing narrative.. pick one narrative and stick to it


years ago your forum wifes narrative was
"no more than 1mb because conservatism"
"lets not scale bitcoin transactions because alt networks will serve people"

the block limit moved from 1mb to 4mb but again your forum wife
"lets not scale bitcoin transactions because alt networks will serve people"
"no more transactions because conservatism"

but now you and him are saying that 4mb of dead weight data bloat is good but you still dont want more transactions(real payments) per block, with your lame excuse you call "censorship"

grow up with your schemes to ruins bitcoins utility as a payment network by advocating that it should become a meme library.. all so you can promote your alternate networks (yes you love lightning and monero) as the things people should use instead

---

when you speak independently. such as having knowledge that certain things are not compatible with older nodes.. is one thing

but then when you go against your own research and just chant the usual scripts and buzzwords you read from your social drama group.. that is when you become and sound like the idiot.. because you are going against your own knowledge just to say things that sound as if your only purpose of saying them is to ass-kiss a group of other idiots that want to ruin bitcoin and promote altnetworks as the only escape from the things they want ruined

how about you observe computer science
you sound exactly like your forum wife again.. too much infact.
as for backward compatibility
brand new webrowsers dont like old flash/java
heck even old html tags dont work any more like <marquee><nobr><no embed> to name a few

old webbrowsers dont understand DIV CSS or the latest media players

heck even core do not support computers of old operating systems or .net software below a certain release

as for you abstinence=push it in without consent adoration:
the bitcoin network is a consensus network where FULL nodes are suppose to agree on a set ruleset which unites them and keeps the network clean

you wanting to have devs continually break consensus and have lots of fullnodes downgraded into being fool nodes( to not fully validate and also prune to not fully archive) just shows how shameful you are to want to break bitcoin

..
by the way nodes made pre 2016 do not store full blockdata nor are part of the block or tx relay of all bitcoin users. they are instead via newer nodes handed a striped out version of blocks where old nodes cant fully validate all transactions nor propagate full blocks
(even the core devs admit to this)

this is not about sustainability. its about breaking security
you and your forum-wife keep trying to pretend that backward compatibility sustains the network. when actual fact it dilutes the security and also dilutes the numbers of actual full nodes.

stop shamefully misleading people into thinking that the stuff you admire which is to dilute the security soften the rules is good. the reality is its bad

you are very shameful in your adoration of exploits

there are actual limits

the spot market always speculates within a limit

for instance if every man and his dog can mine bitcoin for under $120k on the planet. no one would rationally want to buy bitcoin for more then $120k

this has been proven several times by the market price "topping out"

the most inefficient and expensive mining (hawaii. japan electrical cost + retail price asics) had a mining cost of $75k in 2021 and $22k in 2017 no one wanted to buy bitcoin if it was cheaper to mine for everyone and sell for profit. so the buyer:seller ratio has a dynamic at certain prices until no one wants to buy anymore due to it being too premium

same goes for the bottom if using the most economic electric, the most efficient asic at the most wholesale/bulk buy cost of asic. can mine for $15k meaning no one can mine for less
then no one can acquire bitcoin for less. no one wants to sell for less thus the price has a non-zero bottom so no one wants to sell anymore due to being too valuable

knowing these maxims
you can scale how much hashrate/coin and thus mining costs of minimum and maximum to work out these (off market) min and max, which the markets then speculate inside of

for bitcoin to be sold in speculative spot market at $110k the hashrate can stay where it is. because right now the max window/top of possible speculation can go upto $110

for it to go to $1m the mining cost of the world needs to 10x for there even to be a possibility of allowing the market to speculate upto $1m

in short.
if the hashrate was to stay the same and asic economics stayed the same
then with 2024 halving will open the off market window to $30k-$220k
then with 2028 halving will open the off market window to $60k-$440k
then with 2032 halving will open the off market window to $120k-$880k

however we know mining hash/kw changes over time(asic efficiency) and also network hashrate changes(reward competition)

if asic efficiency gets better by halving its cost but then there are over 600exahash on the network.. thus bringing the balance back to same overall measures

if asic efficiency didnt better but then there are over 600exahash on the network.. thus doubling cost

..
ill leave you all to factor in those variables

channel creation without blockchain confirmed balance begins again
channel creating without confirms value locks


FRACTIONAL RESERVE LN balance
Msats with no bitcoin confirmed value peg

good luck with that

oeleo
in this topic you said how things are too vague, and it needs to be tested in court
then just now you said how lots of lawyers have said it means what you say it means

pick one narrative and stick with it. as it seems its you that is not sure about how regulators treat lightning thus play ping pong games of narratives to go back and forth

also no it does not mean those laws mean that bitcoin nodes are a PF just because lightning routing is implied as being a PF
because its not about running a node on a network relaying payments.. its about HOW the payments are facilitated that counts

learn how bitcoin payments differ to lightning payments

now please dont go back and forth with "i dont understand" "too vague " needs testing" and please do try to learn understand im not nor ever have been the type that wants or needs people to follow my words or opinion... every time i have seen you fall down a hole of being wrong about something, due to your over indulgence of being pro-snake oil sales hyper about a sub network.. i have simply said to just go DYOR do your own research

but it seems you just get angry that i break your sales pitch for the subnetwork adoration rather then take the time to research how the real world impacts the crypto world and vice versa

how about care a more about the potential recruits you are trying to sway to your favoured alt network. more so than if you have failed in your sales pitch

EG if there is things that can get people arrested. tell people the risk and how they can reduce their risk.. instead of "dont worry, just wait until you appear in court" style of mindset

now getting on topic
for those using lightning and are using your balance to allow payments for others(routing) be VERY CAREFUL.. financial regulations do apply

and right now regulators see things like doing PF for countries on the sanction list is a higher priority for regulators to find and sort out, more so then other financial crimes right now

---

oh and some other hints..
things called "honeypot trap"

autorities do go out and get involved in illicit deals to then arrest the people they done deals with
EG police undercover doing drug deals to catch a dealer
EG police undercover doing prostitution deals to catch a prostitute/pimp
EG bitlicence agents doing account registrations with unlicenced exchanges
EG us embassy agents living in russia seeing which services allow russian residents access to world value/funds

and yes if you are doing a defi where you are moving your fiat to a russian and swapping msats.. they can find you out by many ways.. including the LNURL (aka invoice link) the payer/payee relationship
(one of many examples)

so dont play dumb when it comes to things that can get people into alot of legal problems
..make people whom you try to recruit aware of the risks of the alt networks you want them to move over too

and yes regulators know all about lightning. they have it listed as a privacy enhancing financial tool. which is why US regulated exchanges like coinbase does not accept lightning (coinbase is sister company to the devs sponsorship group that made lightning.. yep when a group that paid for lightnings creation and deems it their product has sister companies that refuse to use said product.. you know something is up)
because using lightning is a red flag when it comes to suspicious activity

i do apologise that i have to keep bursting your dream utopian bubble of hyped up misleading promotion of a sub network. but real people do actually want to be risk aware. and not just sold a dream

angelo.. seeing as you have retired from scrap metal trading.. when i think of you this is what i see


reference is a tv show called steptoe and son about a poor old guy in the scrap business.. oh he wears a black hat

doomad, blackhatcoiner, wind_fury, thecodebear, o_e_l_e_o, nutildah, n0nce

these names above are the loudest snake oil salesmen, there are others and ill update as i see fit

these idiots want to continually soften, remove and abuse bitcoin rules with silly crap being added that breaks bitcoins utility, purpose and ethos. for their sole purpose of wanting to recruit users over to a subnetwork

they use shameful pitches and mislead users by pretending bitcoin history didnt happen the way the block data, code and logic proves. or by saying how new features that negatively impact bitcoins utility are in their mind good

i put this post here as reference, to link when people ask about who are the idiots of the forum who never want to do independent research about bitcoin nor care for bitcoin security/utility..
..and just majority of the time sound like sheep repeating narratives that each other echo to themselves related to flaws/features they enjoy which are related to wanting to break bitcoin/change bitcoins utility negatively just to self promote a subnetwork

@pooya
you might want to google the word anyonecanspend and realise that it exists as a bitcoin thing
i will give you zero hints .. oops maybe im too subtle


much like other opcodes are called things like checksig and checkmultisig and hash160
there are loads of them

dont be anal with grammar naziism simply because i used the common name instead of the op number

going by what you have said

rationale would be translated as:
because the witness was suppose to be one signature length. the implication then became why have extra rules to check that its only 1 signature length or 10kb if its implied that taproot would only need 1 signature length by its normal use, why waste cpu time checking for length at all if taproot is going to be 1 signature length as standard.. so they stopped checking for length

you are correct based on what you quoted was a bad judgement/move on their part

again the solution is
apply a 1 signature length rule check
it doesnt break old node rules it just stops future bloat

solution is much much simpler
no re-org is needed

all thats needed is to do a miner assisted consensus hardening. to have instead of the opcode used for these deadweight memes being kept at allowing upto blockweight(4mb).
have it using only upto 80bytes that way it doesnt break old nodes because 80 bytes is still within the current 'upto 4mb'
thus not causing issues for older nodes
whilst strengthening consensus and also removing future bloat from occurring

@Macadonian

ok let me just tell you

i am not like them i do not create buzzwords and try to make them go viral.
its their game to try to fame up their words

lightning balance borrowing is not a noun(name/buzzword) its an adjective(description)

i even described it after.. which you quoted thus now you know how lightning works

A is borrowing B 's balance to C and C is using his balance to D for A to pay D
thus yes borrowing. promising later settlements. aka IOU's

it is words that describe the process. not a random brand name/buzzword
blackhatcoiner pretends to be dumb and pretends he cannot understand things. even though i am dumbing down things for him and avoiding techno jargon because they do not like it when techno jargon is used.

i purposely use ELI-5(explain like im 5) to avoid 98% of his responses of "i dont understand" and yet he again tries to just go into dumb mode

now he is trying  to go super dumb by pretending that certain things must be a buzzword he doesnt know. rather then reading the context and learning how lightning works to understand the description

its that simple

the reason i speak to certain people with words like idiot and dumb. is becasue for a couple of years they have been shouting the same snake oil sales pitches loving and adoring lightning and trying to recruit people but always avoiding learning about the reality. they only care about speaking of the best case scenario utopian sales pitches. and due to it being a few years of opportunity to learn the real lightning network and also their discussions about legislation, jurisdiction and regulatory classification..  and the risks that lightning presents and the flaws and even the dev reports of issues they cant and wont resolve. but they continually advertise that lightning is the best..  yet they still have not took the time to think for themselves

even in 2021 and 2022 they knew about the legislation and regulatory working of payment facilitators. OELEO and them had discussions where they were trying to say that it meant bitcoin was a PF but then they went on the defence when i corrected them saying lightning routing is a PF.. not a bitcoin dev nor a bitcoin node nor a asic

yet as you can see this week they are playing dumb, and starting the same games again. denying lightning regulatory classification and then trying to swing the debate to pretend that in their mind bitcoin is more like a PF not lightning.. where in reality the opposite is true
lighting network is the middle man payment system of using funds to facilitate other peoples payments for a fee

this game of theirs is not new. so this is why i insult them. because they play the same game repeatedly but then play ignorant. and thats why they earn the insults

if it was a one time mistake no problem. if it was a two time mistake followed by them taking the time to learn.. no problem. but their snake oil salesman rhetoric has been going on for years

the whole "censorshp resistant" buzzword they throw about is pathetic too
they pretend bitcoin never had a consent system. and they think it should never have one again.

you keep on trying the "not knowing" defence

you pretending to not know that A is not using As funds that D receives. then not knowing that the funds of a get 'promised' to B. but where B has to promise funds to C who promises funds to D

if you have not worked out about the promises aka IOU's that are not settled hense they are classed as IOU's.. not settled. then you still have alot to learn
if you dont understand what promises, commitments and borrowing is.. LEARN

so instead of telling me you dont know things or you are not sure of things.. GO AND LEARN

its obvious you dont want to learn from me and im not asking you to. im saying go learn yourself for yourself

but actually learn and not just recite the echo's someone told you

first of all relaying data in tor is different then using different balances in lightning to route

tor data map is different than lightning balance borrowing

also bitcoin does no play borrow the balance game to shift value around. lightning is not like tor or bitcoin

dont play dumb by pretending you dont know how value transfers in lightnings onion packets. and then cry when you get called dumb for acting dumb


you want to pretend in lightning

A pay D is direct communication of A paying D
reality is A-B-C-D

B and C are using their own balance and each others balance to facilitate the payment for A where the destination is D and where they take a commission(fee) for agreeing to be a payment facilitator

forget trying to read some promotional snake oil salesmans material..

actually take a couple steps away from your echo chamber and actually read the code, read how it works and then read regulations and for your own benefit of your own risk awareness.. LEARN about how regulations in the real world and functions in the real world outside of dreamy sales pitches work and affect each other

grow some confidence to break away from your echo chamber group

your forum wife this week is trying to break away from his own narrative.. its time you do too

..
if you still want to play ignorant and just echo chamber stuff.. thats on you

i want to talk about the dead weight data bloat.. but yet again a social drama queen group want to make it all about "franky"

silly fools will do anything to resist learning. researching, thinking.. and it seems "franky" is to blame for their ignorance

---

you know very well about how consensus got softened you have been loudy promoting the "backward compatability" flaw that allows new things in without mass node consent
(backward compatibility translates to 'abstinence is consent')
you know that older nodes treat new things as valid by default even if they cannot fully verify the content
you know the flaw. you love the flaw dont play dumb now


you deny following doomad then admit you follow doomad all in the same paragraph

as for what he says being reasonable.. reasonable to WHOM oh yea corporate paid centralist groups wanting alternative networks to become middlemen services for users so they can take a fee from users, whilst trying to ruin bitcoin to help push people to alternative networks

again reasonable to whom is doomads rhetoric?

as for refuting
show me the code, data, and statistics that back up you and his rhetoric

yes your echo chamber crew can repeat "franky is wrong" but you can never back up how or why. unless its just some "i dont understand what your saying"

try to escape your echo chanber of confirmation bias of idiot group..

do some real learning about source DATA (not social drama)
such as reading code. reading bips reading moderation polices and development plans for the core roadmap..
read how things work from source code. not social clubs

difference between doomad and a rational person
doomad tries to recruit people and control people trying to tell them what to say and where to say it. including those who disagree with him

i simple say go do some real research and learn for your own risk awareness
if you dont want to learn for your own independent value risk and usage awareness. thats on you... but atleast try,, not for my benefit. but for your own


if your getting angry and upset that i say 'stop sounding like an echo and instead do some research'.. then take some real time thinking about what you are actually angry about
because its now seemingly like you are angry either by:
a. fear of learning
b. fear of losing a loved ones relationship
c. fear of realising you have been a follower of social drama queenery

do you know whats great about doing your own research instead of relying on social queens
its the fact that you can do your own research without needing social queens

give it a try.. just dont use doomad as your main source where he will not back up any of his rhetoric with code/data/stats..

so try some independent research.. emphasis independent.. for your own benefit. not some buddy

another reason these crap memes are a attack vector:

changes to bitcoin where it was considered legally/ recognised as currency allowed countries regulators to get involved. then it was a currency asset. then it was a commodity

and now by instead of just being a financial network it is becoming a media library of image, sound and video. new regulators can step in and try to control what happens to bitcoin due to data laws

we should not let that happen
by continuing to allow dead weight data to be added. means regulators will start to want to set rules on controlling all data to prevent the small case deadweight data from containing illegal content.

bitcoin was never designed to be a media library and due to laws about data and content we should not allow more regulators to decide what happens with data inside bitcoin. by instead trying to get bitcoin back to its main and sole purpose where by its not even considered to be a media library thus avoids any new regulator jurisdiction involvement

bitcoin has never been a censorship-resistance network. the words censorship resistance is not mentioned once in the white paper, nor "censor" not "resistance".. however consensus is mentioned
agreement is mentioned. verification is mentioned

it includes phrases like
Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.

no where does it say "let anything in and treated is as 'isvalid' by default"

ill leave you with this quote to think about


the consensus method has been softened and changed. thus whats happened since the change is not part of bitcoins true purpose

first of all you and those you speak with are the alternative network adorers who also do not want bitcoin to fix the flaws that devs that love alternative networks put into bitcoin

i am a bitcoin maximalist. but not a utopian dreamer im a realist. just because i dont pump out dreamy hype super positive ass kissery does not mean i am not a bitcoiner. it means people that found this forum already heard of bitcoin. they dont need the trick sales pitches. they want to find out real information for risk management and awareness

as for lightning. if you cant tell the difference and think an attack on lightning is a attack on bitcoin. you have alot to learn about why lightning is different to bitcoin

my argument is that before this week lightning lemmings and their echo chamber fanbase have been saying bitcoin tx scaling does not need to occur for X years because lightning promises to be the solution for mass adoption

they have not been saying(until recently) that lightning is just a niche for small payments users.
they have been saying all users should benefit due to lightning
thats the difference

lately the same lemming fanclub of echo chamber rhetoric is suddenly saying how lightning is just a niche service for small spenders and pretending that has always been their sales pitch. yet mentioning bitcoin tx scaling in another topic they still remain strong still shouting that bitcoin scaling should not occur and they like the idea of bitcoin becoming a meme bloat library thus processing less transactions per block because it helps promote lightning as the salvation for people to escape to, to avoid fees and delays

but forgetting to remember that there are some users that actually want to move more then $5-$100 at a time, thus know that lightning is unsuitable. thus bitcoin tx scaling is needed because ill emphasise this lightning is not suitable for mass adoption

also the more people that use lightning the less effective it is at moving value across routes
(please dont shy away with ignorance.. actually run some scenarios.. dont let anyone tell you not to try to find out things and just follow them blindly and just repeat what they say)

if your only remaining debate is that if i hate lightning it must mean i love another altcoin.. you really have ran out of silly arguments. and so now you have ran out.. use your free time to actually learn about bitcoin and lightning as separate networks. learn the differences and the risks.

you keep assuming lightning is the same model as bitcoin
its not.
the way people get paid and make payments in lightning is different to bitcoin
subtle hint.
payment directly to the destined end recipient.
vs
using routers (taking in value, giving out value for third parties for a commission)


lightning value thats deemed to come into your custody or assigned to you. where you then move balance to someone else on behalf of other people for a commission
is different to how bitcoin works


now go to the regulators websites. look at the laws being drafted and already put into law
and LEARN

learn how lightning works and how its different to bitcoin
then you will have the reason why regulators treat lightning differently to bitcoin

oh by the way Scam Bankrupt fraud (sam bankman freed) was 'just moving balance between' his subsidiaries and didnt keep good logs of his customers names/locations.. and yea he played ignorant to the law too

.. and look how that ended

blackhat
you are not original
your girlfriends have this week started to try to pigeon hole me into a altcoiner group

however it is YOU and your girlfriends that adore alternative networks

and even now you are not thinking using your own words but scripts that your girlfriends have been saying

atleast try to think for yourself and stop thinking "i dont understand"

bitcoin has never been a censorship resistance network
its a consent network

the masses cant move value without the consent of the signer
the individuals couldnt(until the softening) change the rules without the consent of the masses


learn the difference between consensus vs censorship
then realise that core have gained too much centralised power
then the lead maintainers and devs that have recently been removed have admitted to the centralisation

core have a moderation policy in all development discussion area's and also in the github
even they dont believe in censorship resistance

i know you are upset that i ruin your subnetwork sales pitches, and upset that i ruin your dreams of breaking bitcoin just to offramp recruits to your subnetwork

but come back to reality and realise your subnetwork has too many flaws to be useful for the masses
then start to actually care more about bitcoin rather then the fanclub/idols you prefer to defend

you seem to care more about defending a group of people rather than the bitcoin protocol
you dont care if bitcoin gets ripped apart as long as the people you idolise can continue doing what they please even if it gets you personally into trouble