YOU guys have been saying it

you guys have been saying that lightning "is" bitcoin thus not different
you guys have been saying that bitcoin cant do XYZ and people should use lightning instead

promoting LN as the "solution" the best way forward compared to onchain scaling and all your other blurb trying to promote lightning as the best case scenario to move forward and where bitcoins on scaling wont work and such

the crap of you lot saying lightning is ontop.. and hating when i call lightning a SUB network
how you lot want people to think of lightning as a bitcoin 2.0. when reality is that lightning is not even a bitcoin network. but a subnetwork bridge for multiple currencies
(even poon called it a cross-border network for multiple currencies)

i know you now want to pretend you lot never said the snake oil sales pitches. but your post histories show more about the blurb you have said previously, compared to what you are trying now to say that you didnt say


even today doomads forum-husband said "no one said LN payments are complete and confirmed"
i then reminded him of 14 minutes before that where he said ln payments were confirmed.
then as soon as he remembered. he then went on to say that he thinks LN payments are confirmed.

forgetting that in this topic he was trying to say that he never said that ln payments were confirmed, before just now saying ln payments are confirmed

in short doomad and blackhatcoiner cant even remember what they are trying to say and change their narrative and then deny having a narrative.

they are not settled. because the destinations of value can be revoked, changed, reassigned.(re-instated(new states)) they are not settled because they are not on the immutable ledger

imagine you had btc balance in a utxo. which you lock to use in lightning
lightning still sees you have collateral.
but whomever you pay in LN has no record in bitcoin of them receiving that value.
thus at this point you still own all the collateral.
value signed to someone else is not confirmed as being that someone elses because its not confirmed..
much like never trusting CEX exchanges, because if the value is not on your key in a confirmed utxo its not your value
(#NotYourKEYNotYourBTC)

understand why cypherpunks for decades were running into the same problems for their digital money idea's until bitcoins blockchain idea come to be

understand the things blockchains solved in 2009.
the idea of LN is not new and above blockchains. its actually old and predates blockchains.
yep "smart contracts" are old tech

they are not finalised settled. they are just (weak)promises of future (alterable)settlements. but where there are still flaws which can break them promises. thus they are not even good promises.

learn what bitcoin is and what lightning is and how they are different. and what works and doesnt work

you have been fooled or trained to think lightning is better then bitcoin. its not

your memory must be the shortest memory i have seen yet
you wrote in this topic that you never argued X
just 14 minutes after you actually said that lightning is confirmed


that topic was talking about lightning payments.

see what i mean you say that lighting is confirmed. and then pretend in this topic that you never said that lightning payments are confirmed..

how can you be so manipulative to say such obvious contradictory things in such a short time. but then pretend you dont contradict what you are saying

even if its just in signed unbroadcast state within lightning and not yet sent to the bitcoin network for confirm. you pretend its still confirmed without the actual confirm

..
reality is lightning payments are not confirmed/settled/final
they are just iou promised.. because they are yet to be complete/confirmed/settled

these silly memes being "sold" for hundreds of thousands. are not actually sold to new recipients
its the maker selling to himself, to set a spot price. but at no cost becasue funds move from and back to the same person

this then fakes a price. to make people think they are worth a high amount

this same game was played on ebay with UK 50pence pieces being sold by.. the buyer being the seller, offering themself a price of £5-£50 just to set fake prices and get some media attention making people think 50pence pieces were worth £50

..
as for ordinals. they are not NFT. by any strength of peg/representation

blackhat and his forum-wife doomad do not understand blockchains and what they represent. they dont like blockchain nor know about them. they love broken systems that dont use blockchains

you will see thempromote things to make bitcoin network less useful and more expensive just to recruit people over to sub par networks like lightning
they hate how i ruin their snake oil sales promises(that never flourish)

---

moving msats via onion payments) on another network is not the same as moving bitcoin

if the current state is not in a bitcoin block. its not settled

.. black hats buddies game is to scam people into thinking people dont have to nor should settle their value back to the bitcoin network.. thus stay within lightning forever long term until people dont have value left on their side(nothing left to give back to themselves as change). thus have to close out to give out settled balance to others. and to refill more value.

its like old banking scheme
deposit all your gold. play with bank notes. but make it hard difficult expensive to try getting your gold back. and make it sound like you dont need to get your gold back..

when you decide to finally broadcast.. that broadcast is THEN the same as broadcasting a unconfirmed tx onchain. because thats what you are then doing..
however before a broadcast, is even less like a bitcoin broadcast unconfirmed payment session
EG

e. confirm into block is confirm into block and deemed settled/final immutible/complete
d. broadcast onchain itself is not a blockchain confirm
c. close session itself is not a blockchain confirm
b. holding 'current state' is not a blockchain confirm
a. deciding on a route to take and having the recipiant sign acceptance is not a blockchain confirm

you making a payment to a restaurant (a) is 4 steps away from settlement
bitcoin relaying a unconfirmed tx (d) is 1 step from settlement

relaying a unconfirmed bitcoin transaction shows up "instantly" in lots of explorers and recipients mempool.

but lightning payment (a) and bitcoin relay(d) are not settled. thus both unconfirmed.

multlsig is bitcoins true "trust"

imagine it as a 4 of 5 multisig(4 out of 5 trustee's)

you have 1 key
your wife has 1 key
child one has 1 key
child two has 1 key
your Will has 1 key

while you are alive if wife+kids combined their 3 signatures. nothing happens
none of your family can sign solo to release funds

but you plus family can move funds
or
your family+Will reading can move funds

obviously while alive you dont sign a tx that unfairly shares funds if family send you a raw tx in their favour(against your favour)
and the Will reader will sign only a tx that fairly distributes funds the way your Will dictates they be distributed

as for "living trusts"
as i said it requires all four people to agree(the trustees) on who the beneficiaries are
no single user can
(well if you made the multisig you too could keep the fullset of keys you give to family)
however for a fair system letting family make their own keyset and hand you only the public key to create the funding address, means no one, including you has the full set of privkeys from the start

the thing about having one seed which you have to bring together by you travelling to different locations is.. well
once you gathered it once. you dont need to gather the word again. because they are then in the one location..

oh and if a clever burglar knows your addresses. and watches that once a week you were to go to different locations to get each word of 'xor' split and then come home to link them. he just has to wait for you to "come home"

where as..
using multisig
you can prepare a raw tx at home(unsigned).. and then when going to different locations. get the signature from each location. and then broadcast it.
whereby the keys stay at the locations and just sign at each location..
which is much more secure. and also means your not bringing the keys home where a burglar is waiting

"one seed split" means bringing seed together to then sign in one device. thus compromising the device by holding the combined seed thus no longer needing multiple locations there after

"multisig" means keys stay separate, they take in raw tx and give out signature at each location. where you are only taking the signatures with you. not the keys.

but its not settled. its just "sent"

much like all unconfirmed payments
you can see it instantly but doesnt mean its confirmed and settled

lightning network deals in unconfirmed payments

bitcoin network has always had unconfirmed payments displayed in the same "instant"

dont be fooled into what the lightning salesmen tell you lightning is. because it doesnt work the same as what they say.

also in lightning you never set the fee you want to pay. instead when you insert the destination. it finds all possible routes and either only displays the cheapest or gives you the options

sauna's cause dehydration and thus at extremes hallucinations and delusions

in short.. expect weird conversations with people in sauna's, dont take what people say in sauna's as fact
..
the story (guy creating reputation by saying he talks with top level people)
seems scammy

he then giving investment advice to show good planning..

.. all that is missing is the pitch part where he say he will do it for you if you just hand him the funds.. and then.. you never see him again
..
as for the trade advice (ignoring the first and last parts)
i too would play it both sides

having a reserve of btc and reserve of fiat
when the btc price is low 'sell some of your fiat, buy btc'
when the btc price is high 'sell some of your btc, buy fiat'

that way you are always "accumulating" in one stash of value or another. and if timing it right you end up accumulating both. and not missing any opportunity on the ups or the downs

..
just dont hand funds to guys you just met in a sauna. invest it yourself properly. "self-sovereign" not "stranger-stealing"

bitcoin has multisig and time locks
no need for a middle man custodian

there are multiple ways to implement things without the need of some bank manager/estate proxy/custodian

...
as for grayscales "trust"
the shares you buy are not btc. heck they are not even fixed to a set value of btc. the value of a share changes too much..

the "trust" has a reserve of ~633k btc. but these btc are not held in some multisig of multiple people who administrate the decisions. they are on >800 legacy funded transactions keys meaning one entity has control to move funds.. thus not really a "trust"

usually a trust is a team of trustee's/chairmen that have to combine in agreement of requested purpose to move funds out to a beneficiary

but GBTC does not do that. they simply have value on legacy keys which coinbase has control to move it at for any reason coinbase could choose/deny, it only takes one person(bad security)

this is the non techy, first conversation explainer..

bitcoin transactions are like cheques

each cheque(transaction) shows
- the funds origins: bank routing number/sortcode/account(utxo)
- the destination 'to:' (output)
- the value to spend
- a signature to authorise the spend

bitcoins signatures are better then cheque signatures because its based on complex math done on the transactions details and a secret passphrase which combine to a unique signature(not revealing the secret) which can prove only the true owner of the origin funds could have signed it

these cheques(transactions) are collected into batches(blocks) where each batch(blocks) has a reference id(blockhash) of the previous batch(block) those batch linking(block chaining) them together

instead of a central bank clearing the cheques people around the world confirm and verify the blocks via alot of complex math, and everyone else on the network double confirms the blocks of transactions meet rules that everyone agree's. thus everyone has the same agreed data

.. if they are interested to learn more about the intricate details then you can send them to the forum or give them links to the more technical stuff of each part..

---

as for buying spending economics

its like most things
gold is measured in ounces on the market. but people buy/sell jewellery, electronics by the gram
meat/vegetables are measured in KG on the market. but people buy amounts measured in grams/pounds
oil is measured on the market as barrels. but bought by the litre

there are ways to lock value and represent said value to be spent in alternative systems. however the current methods of certain systems are prime for abuse and dont actually represent/link/peg to said main value very well on the alternative system side
..
there will be some subnetwork systems in the future, but the current ones being promoted the most, wont be it. it is too flawed to be of general use, let alone used for a niche, as the representations/peg/lock is weak on the subnetwork side
..
there will be NFT on bitcoin eventually (via file hash representation that moves with the spender.. not vaulted whole file library with no latter representation in child tx), but the ones being currently promoted as ordinals are not NFT, its too flawed to be actually tradable onchain. as the representations/peg/lock is non-existent on the child utxo side

simpler solutions

trying to explain to burglars 'its a complicated process' will just make them hold onto you for longer unless you give up the convoluted method. usually more threats and beatings would occur until you give in. they dont like to leave empty handed(EG burglary turns into hostage deal)

so

split funds 95%-5%
if threatened give them your 5%, say its all you have

for the 95% funds
use multisig. requiring a couple keypairs. where paper backups are in different locations

trying to make it convoluted where by a burglar gets nothing just makes the burglar threaten harder and get more angry.

better to just give him a little something, for a higher chance he leaves, with you unharmed

really
then how come the narrative is "lets not do onchain scaling and instead do subnetwork offramping"
and the whole "be patient onchain scaling will eventually happen when subnetworks hit critical liquidity issues to need more onchain scaling"

yep onchain tx scaling has not occured for 7 years because the direction of the core roadmap is to do subnetworks instead
thus yes subnetworks are a slowdown of onchain scaling

seriously
stop the echo chamber of a small central group. and think about bitcoin (the bitcoin network) as a whole for everyone..
you wanting people to move to other networks is about a small group wanting to get paid to be middlemen(routers)

they want bitcoin to remain limited and costly as it pushes people away from bitcoin

even your quote of the book you mentioned a couple posts ago is telling you this should you read it properly

..
here ill reveal the next phase of the game
once subnetworks are populated they want to then have mechanisms where fee's are collected into a central middleman to then be sent to pools via private contracts outside of the bitcoin network. so that the pools get paid to continue hashing. but without needing people to settle onchain to pay pools via fee's due to more games of making it too expensive to use onchain transactions and keep people locked into subnetworks for YEARS

this "off chain" payments to pools means the users of subnetworks end up paying more routing fee's to fund pools offchain. but where the bitcoin network onchain transactions are made to be even super higher to keep that financial incentive being deemed "cheaper offchain" even though the offchain costs will rise

the whole ploy is not to have a cheap functional decentralised payment network. but a middleman payment network with an expensive to use vault/reserve value network
which only the elitists can afford to use becasue they are only moving large amounts

---

they(the centralist idols you love/follow) do not want a decentralised bitcoin network for the unbanked without middlemen.. they want the opposite.
yep blockstream and its subsidiaries(chain code labs and brinks) have received hundreds of millions of investment from institutional investors and those investments need to generate returns
the sponsored devs interests are not about "the community/bitcoin ethos" its now their duty to make returns for their investors meaning breaking the bitcoin ethos to fit whatever system can help give back institutions their investments

funny part is
russias reaction to sanctions is a 2.5% GDP loss
compared to their 2020 level is still above 0% of a 3 year average)

yet 2020-21-22 has seen them same sanctions affect "the wests" economics by more then 2.5% negatively

yep the inflation due to russian sanctions has made all peoples "value" shrink by 13%+

..
the sanction were supposed to make russian citizens lives worse for them to revolt and want a new president

the results though is the wests economics got hit harder making people want different leaders around the world
..

the funny parts are whilst the west are saying "hate the middle east, hate russia, hate china" we are now seeing how reliant the west is/was on the east. due to all the effects the east has had on the west

nice quote.. have you understood it

rather than PEOPLE that want more transactions
small central group controlling the devs decided they wanted small blocks because of financial conflict of interest

yep blockstream got paid HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars. it was not a donation. it was an investment by bankers that want secondary subnetworks that use middlemen getting commission.. yep they want returns on their investments

so yea they dont like bitcoin being a p2p payment system because they cant make money from p2p payments

one script/game they tried was saying "more transactions=big blocks=more costs for nodes = nodes need to be paid" that idea didnt get much traction and died quick

.. the game is currently happening is to ruin bitcoins p2p proposition and try to make people think they need to pay more on bitcoin or pay a middle man on alternative networks

and you are falling into that same narrative

where as ..
bitcoin can have more transaction so individuals pay less individually*
bitcoin can have better fee mechanisms so individuals pay less individually
*bitcoin can have leaner transactions so individuals pay less

.. but you are falling into the trap scripts of "pay more onchain" have less tx onchain.
basically the game of everyone suffers unless they move to other networks

by limiting onchain transaction growth. when the total fee's become more important to mining pools it then causes people to pay more

with transactions count growth onchain there are more transactors. meaning individuals pay less because .. math

if pools need say 0.13000000btc right now as their bonus of 6.25:0.13 reward:fee(income:bonus)
which way should it be:

2000 transactors paying 6500 sat each (10 sat/byte of average 650byte) =0.13
or
4000 transactors paying 3250 sat each (5 sat/byte of average 650byte) =0.13

you and your madhatter family/relationships(you and doomads buddies) prefer less than 2000 average transactions per block where 1 person pays for say 0.3mb at 10sat/byte for the inputs/ooutputs. then 2.5sat/byte for the 300kb of bloat/meme and then 1700 other people pay more then 10 sat per byte for real tx data to try to 'outbid' each other to try to get into the remaining area of a block limit

..
oh and if you actually research. the main core developers that done these changes are blockstream sponsored. which blockstream were consulting with the hyperledger group (the institutional bankers of CBDC prototypes)
so no its not "mastercard" but nice try spinning that stupid idea.
its the other bankers that are using bitcoin as the sandbox experiment for limiting bitcoin utility as just a reserve asset vaults/swap and using second layers as the payment system
yep idea's inspired by hyperledger way back in 2015

you really should try to look at stuff and not just take doomads narrative. he is not helping you learn at all

even your use of the term "big blockers" is not something of a descriptor you have thought up yourself. you are just following a narrative shown to you by idiots that dont understand the big picture

funny part is without a better fee mechanism(you love bitcoin not having one and are fighting against anyone suggesting to implement one).. guess what..  without a fee mechanism.. everyone pays more thus makes it a socialist coin as you describe
yep core control that legacy pays more then segwit but everyone has to pay more based on a fee estimation code..

with a fee mechanism that individualises fee's. only the spammers/bloaters pay more and not everyone. and other people pay a respectable fee based on individual utility of bloat/time between spends
yep respending reciprocal utxos with low age confirms should only be higher fee rate to the spammer utilising blocks more then others.. not a system where everyone has to pay more due to the actions of a few

you want the socialist coin where a bloater causes everyone harm by everyone paying more

---

healthcare analogy:
there are 1999 people in good health that dont see a doctor weekly
there is 1 person who is fat, diabetic(bloated) who sees the doctor weekly

which system do you want
everyones national insurance to increase to cover doctors costs
respectable fees based on how often individuals see the doctor and how bloated they are

seems today you have tried to pull the socialist straw but not realised it

yet again you have pretended to be against one thing but actual idealise it and want to fight off anyone that is against your ideals

you cant remember your own words.. hmm??
you loved all the network changes that were made without mass node consent(consensus)
you love changes that are slid in without consultation of the masses
you love how fee's have been manipulated

YOU are the one obsessed with saying everyone should pay more

in recent years you have said limit the blocksize to push the fee market
now you are saying allow bloat in a limited block size to push the fee market

your the one talking about fee market incentives, bidding

you dont want more tx per block to allow lower fee's..
you dont want fee mechanisms that allow genuine users to pay less and only the spammers pay more.
heck you even loved how legacy transactions were treated as 4x the fee of segwit.

you want standard/legacy p2p payments (the way things used to be) to be made super expensive and you love how gateways to recruiting people towards using your favoured flaws subnetwork of middlemen taking commissions(routing)

all you care about is ways to make bitcoin expensive and impractical to use as a p2p network so you can scam, scheme, and and syphon value away from people for your own buddy groups gain.

you shout 'freedom' where what you really mean is a fee kingdom for everyone else and freedom for you
(a freedom that works in YOUR favour even at a cost to other people)
i know you are not a full node and you love to prune meaning you dont care about bitcoin network security as long as you can get your subnetwork channel to be open to new recruits using you as a middleman.

but atleast try to once in a while take a step back from your personal greed. and think of the ecosystem security as a whole for other users