here is the thing though.

songs are just data.. encryption is data
you can do alot of great things if you combine both.

im not talking about the lame id3 tags(metadata) appended to the end of a mp3 song that can easily be 'ripped' out. im not talking about standard mp3 (which shows data in different frequencies to play). but instead as encrypted data that converts as it buffers the song as long as the key is presented to the special player

whereby again not as just appended metadata at the end of the file. but within the song itself has a frequency range thats not heard by the human ear but is entangled in the song where other software that hear it then block it out
thus making it easy not just for a song writer.. but also for youtube/skype and such to easily 'hear' copyright songs played in a a youtube video/skype call. and block it out

(ever been on a skype/zoom call where someone is playing loud music but the call software is not letting the person on the other end of the call hear it. )
thats because skype can sense the secret sound that tells skype its a copyright song

also most of the copyright stuff is about where big business tries to play songs for free instead of getting a licence. a music artist is not concerned about street bootleggers. they want to ensure radio stations. and music platforms(spotify, itunes) play and pay fairly as thats where the real money is.
the money is not in chasing every street bootlegger that was a pirate of spotify/youtube. its as just said to go after spotify/youtube

sending out a cease and desist letter. to provide a key to prove (a business) has licence to use the song. or settle for X amount before court. or let it go to court whereby you have electronic proof of abuse

---

all that said
there are other utilities too. take cloud hosting /online virtual lands.
(server renting in the old language)
not only can you leave a server, but also lease a virtual plot of land on a server. where a legit business can render a online store in a 3d world that has rendered 3d products inside the 3d store. where people can see such products where designed just to be used within the 3d word of some game it as a representation of some real world stock that gets sent to real world home location when purchased

..
NFT are not just about memes. there is alot more then can be done with them

satoshi was reading through cypherpunks mailing list pre 2009 and patched together different cypherpunk idea's plus his own into a unique form. and then began coding it then released the first version asking for help from other who were interested to get involved and bug fix and such

he was not alone. he didnt 'do it all'
there were others. such as hal finney as one notable name.
but hal finney was not "a satoshi" hal finney was hal finney

satoshi and hal wrote edits and bug fixes in january 2009+
other developers came in and helped (also using their own usernames)

in 2009 there was one entity/person behind the pseudonym(online name) satoshi

he didnt share his pseudonym with others
he did talk to and interact with cypherpunks and other developers interested in decentralised money, but they had their own pseudonyms

some people think it cant be a lonely guy that never got help from anyone.
so they foolishly think there was more than one guy behind the name.. rather than the logic and common sense and documented history proof that he did interact with other people, but each with their own name

the claim that is was a team behind "satoshi" is just some nonsense
a few reasons is that idiots then pretend they are part of it. part of "satoshi" to gain fake fame and scam people pretending they were "satoshi"

fake claims of they were "a satoshi" without being "the satoshi" as their get-out clause excuse to never be able to sign message of an address of a known satoshi allotment of coins

in short group/team satoshi is BS crap

i only said that as i have seen in many topics about chaindata size and hard drive capabilities(like this topic), where people talk about bitcoin hardware age suggesting that bitcoin should support hardware from back in 2005 as the reason they cry that 500gb is "to big" "to slow"

they usually side step first by giving other examples of big tech still supporting XX year old stuff.. then reign it in to use as an example that bitcoin should emulate that and stick to floppy disk data and all that other BS 'cox corporation X does it'

im just saying 500gb is not big or slow.. after all we are in 2023
not 2003 nor 2008 nor 2013 nor 2018

funny part is some people that pretended to be "data saving conservatives" are now saying, let bitcoin bloat up the 3mb weight space with useless ordinal meta data unrelated to making a payment transaction peer to peer

personally 500gb of 14 years of international currency 'be your own bank' statements of millions of users is pretty small lump

incase your subtle trying to infer that microsoft still technically supports windows 98 and xp and even vista.. well lets have a shot at debunking that

many business by default upgrade every 4 years as there is a 4 year tax relief on business tools(they can write off a % of PC equipment costs against tax for upto 4 years)

many software providers end their technical support after X years because most of
their customers have upgraded to a new PC with new operating system by then

this makes microsoft then not need to provide tech support(OS patches) for 10yo systems because most corporate customer have upgraded in 4 years and consumers within 4-8

old features like opening an old *.doc file in latest MS word is different than no longer providing software updates/tech support/bug fixes for word 2012

so even microsoft move forward with the times and gives up trying to support systems over 10 years old

heck even core no longer support XP or Vista era PC's

its not about trying to bang peoples heads against the wall to drop fiat and only use bitcoin.

its about just telling them there is a different option
its like telling them instead of bank accounts that offer 0.001% interest gains
there are credit unions that offer 2% gains

its not about converting carnivores into vegans. its about saying try some potato alongside their steak

its not about asking a beer alcoholic to get sober and drink water. its about offering him a fine wine or a whiskey

alot of people treat bitcoin as if it some entity with arms and legs and a mouth which will one day get on a plane and come to someones area and start a business in that area. or educate everyone at a conference it has organised.

bitcoin is not AI nor an entity that hops on a plane

it is very much users doing things in their area/ability.. working together and individually to do small parts which act as a whole to strengthen the bitcoin ecosystem

much like how bitcoin works
each peer has its set rules and plays its part in communicating and storing information around it where the subsequent mass of people doing the same thing, which makes the network strong and robust

dont rely or wait or hope for central point/entity to do it . each person plays their part

if you are just waiting, following, hoping some influencer will be the next big thing for bitcoin. you are waiting and hoping for the wrong things
..
you do not need to be the next big thing for bitcoin in your area
you can simply be a person that finds a nice cafe in your area with enough seating for multiple people. and invite people to have a cup of coffee and chat about bitcoin

find out peoples interest in it, find out their involvement and skills. let them vocal-network with each other to find out who is a energised buyer who is a energised seller. let them be known as the people to go to, to do trades with face to face
find out who are the local business owners, promote them as stores that could sell produce for coin
find the miners and developers as the "tech" group who can teach what they know to others.

ask each of them what are their main local shops they all prefer, like a hotlist of shops most would love to see accept bitcoin. and find the guy thats a good spokes person to go promote it to said hotlist.
you dont need to be the techie, or the exchanger, or the spokes men if thats not your skillset. but starting off small like a coffee morning and see what others can offer can start a positive movement

if your coffee meetings get popular upgrade them into seminars, conferences and such.

a. doesnt require a roll back
other ways are even simpler.. new rule to reject formats that use more then 80 bytes of witness/script per Tr input/output.
and even maybe a rule to limit outputs per tx
(there is no reason any transaction deserves say XXkb of space for bloat each to fill a block with just YY tx's)
thus avoids spam.
thus then still allowing those on taproot users that only wanted to taproot to spam metadata not be able to spam metadata, but still exit taproot without being frozen in the network

b. if you think the only option is blind follow core else create an altcoin. again you have no clue(like certain people) of how consensus mechanisms work, nor should work, yes core found a bypass to allow them to make new formats without needing a united consent to activate. but that can change and revert back to how consensus run pre 2017
again if you think the only option is let core do as they please or run an altcoin.. you have lost any credibility of knowing the purpose of what bitcoin solved in 2009+ which made bitcoin unique to any previous "digital money" platforms before it.
the delay in using bitcoin how it should be is just a re-education. to make people learn what real decentralisation and consensus is all about
if your wiling to learn. learn what the byzantine generals problem was and how bitcoin solved it via a consensus that united multiple peers
and un-learn the idolisms of a core'poral being in charge of rules

(facepalm)
again your thinking in boolean only 2 option
its not a case of allow everything or allow nothing

bitcoin was invented with a byzantine generals solution feature.. its called consensus
where it should not be an all or nothing. but a consensus to decide what to allow or reject
EG big rules cant change(consent by majority survey(consensus) wont consent to big rule changes. thus they become hard rules of consensus), small rules can change, some formats proven to work, to be allowed if consent is majority..  other formats that failed to be rejected
..
WHY is it that people who registered years ago to this forum dont even know the basic things of bitcoin
..


yes i know the consensus mechanism has been bypassed since 2017 which is why they think that bitcoin has no rules.. and new rules and formats have been slid in without network consensus (consent by census(mass survey))
but thats because dev politics.. people need to realise whats actually happened in bitcoin and realise what bitcoin was about and is about
what rules were hard rules in 2009-16, now reduced to soft rules 2017+, and such..
so that..they can know where they stand

---

you are an idiot
you dont want fee formuleas in bitcoin to make spam/bloat expensive. you want bloaty transactions of batches and length witnesses to be discounted. you want the spam.. you want it so you can sales pitch the flawed subnetwork you adore as the solution everyone should offramp you.. when bitcoin gets congested
yes you want the congestion. you want the premium fes on bitcoin.. as it aids you selling your snake oil subnetwork. which cant even be capable of handling most case tx values that bitcoin process
(LN can in best case only handle 95% success for under $30 value payments)
(bitcoin does about $2b in movement a day and 350k tx a day=average $5700 a tx)
people can move billions in 1 tx on bitcoin no issue. but LN has a 5% fail rate with just $30 and a near 100% fail rate above $800
...
suggesting everyone should wait because LN is the thing devs see as the progression path. is a patience plea that has been running for too many years now
..
you dont want bitcoin devs to remove the cludgy code holding payment data down to a 1mb limit. because again you want to limit transaction counts per block while saying you love how devs allowed a 3mb addon weight for bloaty scrypts/metadata/etc. thus again wasting data space while not uprating the tx count to be more useful
and as just shown in your quote. you think anyone peed off with core should f**k off to other networks. again you think the only option is adore core of use another network
YOU are the totalitarian centralist adorer..

bitcoin should be the payment network and subnetworks should be the bloaty data crap. not the other way round



the funny thing is you slag it off alot. after all if you thought bitcoin was doing its job you would not need your stupidly flawed subnetwork and not need to try recruit people over to your crap network
bitcoin does work but it needs to evolve too. needs to progress. this progress was growing 2009-2016. but then.. the onchain scaling stopped.
you silly guys saying that there are "scaling solutions" but onchain scaling is not going to happen anytime soon because devs prefer other option where you have for years been saying "just be patient" .. well you said in 2019 just be patient you favoured subnetwork is only 2 years old just wait. well 4 years later you still want people to wait. with the hope your silly subnetwork will(sometime) suddenly flower and bloom into the pretty thing you lot promise..
yea we see your delay stall tactics.. and no your flower is not going to be the thin it was promised as..


funny part is many other subnetwork bridges that have bitcoin value pegged to it have achieved alot more in 15 months than LN has in 7 years

your whole, pretend it didnt happen but let it happen narrative of stifling bitcoin transaction payment scaling growth is obvious
your whole enjoyment of seeing more then 1mb of blocks but not an equal increase in transaction count is obvious

your recruits might be lulled to sleep. but many many people in the wider community see your games they just dont care to call you out and debate your totalitarian dreams

people can see you adore bloating up and making fees expensive(for normal p2p payments) on bitcoin and cheap(miscounting bytes) for bloaty scripts and metadata. where you want everyone to move over to a flawed buggy subnetwork so you can steal value off them.
your shameless sales pitches are getting so bad now that even your own recruited posse are starting to question your narrative and move away from your idolisms

here is something you will learn
people have had enough of your subnetworks unmet promises and hopes. they will leave you behind. whereby other subnetworks will be created that offer things your subnetwork cant even dream to offer let alone fake promise offer. and your wasted 7 years will be for nothing

@Pooya87
thats where meme NFT fail

however.
you have missed or skipped a step, or subtly avoided a step

the usage of web3 and decentralised tech
is that by setting up platforms that require usage of a (decryption)key or permission. then makes that product useful only by the product owner and those he gave permission to

EG encrypting a song.
then hash the encrypted file to have an ID that represents the ownership of file. where the transaction also includes a way to move the de-crypt file key aswell as ownership permissions
use the hash in a NFT platform to trade. whereby. the owner/permissioned user gets the key to unencrypt the file and use the content

where by anyone found with an unencrypted copy of the song, without a key. can be sued. (yep it makes court evidence of IP, copyright fraud easy to judge and prosecute.. so much so it becomes as easy to prosecute/fine a person as "show me a valid parking ticket for the car space we think you didnt pay for, or pay $200 in 14 days")

this step has not been utilised yet.

there are numerous examples of utility.
just utility that should be on subnetworks and platforms. whereby bitcoin network just sticks to payments and not every property licence imaginable on a IP registry

MAHF have been used many times
and yes a certain group want to make it appear that nodes have no say, no vote. but that has been since 2017

oh you might forget the berkely-leveldb drama of 2013
that was sorted out by node reorg. not by GPU power


oh and you do know that mining pools collate the data of a candidate block
oh and you do know that mining pools ises workers of ASICS just to get a strong ID
but its the nodes that the do the block rejections, orphans, and re-orgs

i know you want to pretend that mining pools are the controllers/trojan injectors, to shy away peoples eyes from wanting to look closer at the developers of code rules
but its the developers of the code rules(nodes) that is where the power lays

CORE made taproot not mining pools

its just the devs can set the rules but then not allow users to veto the rules(backward compatibility=turn user nodes into abstainers)
this is becasue most of the activations is by the "follower the leader" where economic nodes have more sway than user nodes.
after all how many users would go against a ruleset of the major exchanges and merchants. meaning users cant pay value to merchants/exchanges if they were accepting/rejecting different sets of transactions/blocks, etc.

---

i understand not every bitcoiner needs to be a full node. but those that want to be a full node should not be downgraded to be a fool node, while having their head stroked and ass kissed and being told to go to sleep pretending they are a full node becasue it sounds the same

oh and you have no clue about the features of bitcoin
you have no understanding of the byzantine generals problem and how bitcoin node code solves it (blocks dont change rules they just collate data. there is no code in a block) devs make the code not block miners.


also eve having a feature that even allows a change of rules without requiring full node validation of a potential ruleset ready to validate a change if it activates is the most biggest risk there is. it should have never been allowed.

network security should have that the software be ready and able to validate a rule before a rule is activated.

its like this
imagine you owned all the amazon servers and one day said.. hmm we are going to receive new data, but lets not update our cloudflare or antiviruses or operating systems or firewalls to be ready to check and monitor this new data.. . lets instead just write one like of code into our servers "new data=default: isvalid" and then tell everything we are still validating everything and ensuring the security of the AWS network(facepalm)

a. lightning network.. like avalanche network allows you to lock up bitcoin or litecoin.
so is avalanche "BITCOIN"?
nope.. avalanche is a different network. emphasise the word network beside the word avalanche proves its another network called avalanche
so is lightning "BITCOIN"?
nope.. lightning a different network. emphasise the word network beside the word lightning proves its another network called lightning

bitcoin never leaves the BITCOIN NETWORK

dont even try to suggest bitcoin leaves the bitcoin network, you are just fooling yourself and suggesting bitcoins security model is broke

(need me to list all networks that allow bitcoin to be locked on the bitcoin. and then using the UTXO as reference point on a different network???)
just because bitcoin has a lock... does not mean whatever subnetwork then uses the utxo as a value/funding reference is also a "bitcoin network" (see point (b) below)
(im surprised by now you snake oil salesmen phishing for brand recognition and faked trust and faked security co co-branding with mainnets. have not already tried to imply that because bitcoin (in your fantasy) can be moved to other networks.. but msats are not recognised or movable back to any mainnets that you then (in your fantasy) pretend that msat units are more secure than blockchain units) because they cant/dont leave lightning

b. lightning has no blockchain. has no decentralised consensus to keep nodes aligned to a specific ruleset and nor enforces a strict peg value, etc etc etc..

c. thor turbo has proved you can offer someone msats WITHOUT "locking bitcoin"
"leasing inbound balance" has proven you can have msats without you locking "locking bitcoin"(plus have no key control of those msat payments)

d. the LIGNTNING NETWORK emphasis network. can operate with multiple coins and is not reliant on bitcoin

e. avalanche has more bitcoin pocked to it than lightning does.. .. does this make avalanche "bitcoin" or is it just another subnetwork bridge (layer 2 crossborder platform)

f. those that say its a layer "ontop"
lets take some rational views.
first like domane names. the 'top level domain name' is not the brand but the directing master seed that routes to brands and sends the mas data to where it should
i know fangirls want LN to be this master thing.. much like the IMF is the master reserve for big banks and doesnt want to be considered as the underling network for giftcarsd below the 'be your own bank' EG the lower grade network like virtual visa that can process small pocket money amounts of multiple currencies

but lightning is an underclass network. it cant handle top end reserve amounts
it cant cope with anything more then ~$700 on average
it is not the IMF network. its the virtual visa network

now is visa called "dollar" or is visa just visa allowing processing movement of visa dollars. yep visa dollars are different to bank deposit savings dollars

g. as for the "rounding down"
rounding is for instance stripping prunning cutting the right side significant figures by 3 numbers

however most lightning wallets are not just doing that.
they are without any network wide protocol enforcing it. having other methods.. and most are using
/ 1000
guys what guys.

lets say if you were to round using the strip prune right side by 2 sig figs instead of 3
lets give it a try

8434747948  (right cut by 3)
8434747 notice the rest of the numbers stay the same

now notice trying it using a division method of less than 1000
lets say 500
i guarantee you that you are not going to get
8434747948  ("round by 500")
8434747474 (you hope that it just plays with the end 3 but by half the amount
instead you get
16869495.896

do you now see how math logic is that trimright(X,3)
is different than X/1000

and for emphasis
the /1000 is not even an enforced rule
and it can be changed by any amount

so whether a lightning app does math logic code a "round down" properly by cutting away the right side by 3 or with the lazy bug causing /1000

these can be changed to not be cut right by 3 or /1000, but changed to anything..
meaning different nodes are not set in stone/hardrule protocol where an msat will always be 3significant figures to a sat
which is a bad conversion peg security for any financial system
there is no network strengthened rule set to abide by a set conversion rate
refer to(b)

h.
oh and the last funny.. by introducing RBF, your little crown have been snake oiling the flame by saying dont trist zero confirms relayed on the bitcoin network they re not settled they are not confirmed, blah
but you lot also want to say lightning zero-confirm commitments are to be trusted and are to be treated as being paid (facepalm for multiple reasons)

dont be so quick judge
bitcoin doesnt really have a proper well know subnetwork. even less one thats only designed to operate with bitcoin and bitcoin alone

root stock is a subnetwork bridge. it allows bitcoin and ethereum
just becasue rootstock give away some RKS if some bitcoin mining pools put a rootstock blockheight hash into a bitcoin coinbase reward output
does not mean its integrated to only be function for bitcoin

rootstock can continue on making its own new blocks without paying a pool to mile stone its chain at certain random heights(include a rootstock hash in a bitcoin block)

rootstock can also function even if it only handles eth erc20 tokens
same goes for liquid

Ln has always been a cross border subnet bridge. even its first transaction was done using litecoin, even poons whitepaper called it a cross platform network

..
ethereum has HUNDREDS of subnetworks and yes majority are bridge subnetworks

but bitcoin is slacking behind. it needs to stop wasting years on half assed subnetwork bridges and "conservative.. patience" that after years have not met promises..and maybe start a completely new subnetwork. one that actually solely functions as a subnetwork for bitcoin. and has some integrity, purpose it can meet, utility it can use, some policy and accountability of security. and let that grow into something with some niche utility like "bitcoin backed NFT"

good example. which is why ether then done coloured coins and nft on subnetworks

a. the sily subnetwork BRIDGE you speak of is not even a skin of bitcoin. its a bridge(crossborder) system for multiple currencies. its just had such crap development and shoddy work done on it not one has really bothered to use it apart from idiots that think its just for bitcoin" thus snake oil phish pitched it as a bitcoin only thing
heck even poon called it a cross border network so get a clue

b government regulators are not attacking that silly subnetwork due to stable coins.. its about facilitating the routing of payments on the behalf of third parties for a commission.. (or as the americans call it running a money service business) which has always put LN routers at risk even moving msats..
the reason governments have not chased after people that open up their msats for route utility. is becasue the amounts are too small to give a crap about chasing someone for a $2 profit per month

c. core are the defacto authority. every proposal has to go through them an be moderated out quick or sponsored in .. any other implementation brand ever trying to offer proposals not part of the core roadmap gets REKT

d. allowing funcky new formats in that do not require nodes to be upgraded first to recognised the rules set of new formats is BAD. it means nodes are not verifying and validating the full blockchain data. SUPERBAD
going soft is a way that consensus strictness has been softened to allow possible bugs/trojan functions into bitcoin without any vetting review or prevention by the decentralised network. its done to bypass the requirement of full nodes to be ready to validate everything. its done to let core get their way while not allowing there centralised network to object to it

e. anyone saying let it happen let it carry on. is revealing they dont care about bitcoins concept and protocols and just wants a certain group to remain the central point of failure, knowing a central point of failure will fail at some point

f. i do laugh how those central point adoration guys pretend there is no one controlling /authorising proposals.
YET bitcoin is not AI.. its not self generating code..
its done via devs. <-emphasis

there is an OBVIOUS group of devs sponsored by corporations, and its those corporate features that get added above any "community" desire
(and no im not talking about volunteer contributors that just translate the GUI or grammar/spell check minor comments, im talking about paid devs with commit, merge and release candidate publishing privileges)
yep devs write code. and we need to hold the accountable, review them, critique them.. not let them have "god mode" (soft access) to upgrades

1. you dont need to bloat a blockchain with the actual file data.. thats what hashs are for

2. you can create a bitcoin lock. and then referece that as value on a subnetwork(one designed better than some subnetwork designs thus far) and then put all that hash ID+meta data+any dream and fantasy you like on that subnetwork, which has some consensus chain of file hash accountability and verification and also accountability(again unlike some shoddy subnetworks designed today)

3. i know for years dev politics has been that payment transaction data should only consist of the 1mb block 'base'(weight/4 cludge) wall but then have 3mb of space for bloaty scripts and signature mass. but that does not mean its then default acceptable to bloat blocks upto 4mb with the said crap. especially if that 4mb weight rule then depreciates how many payment transactions can then be used in the 1mb base if there were say just 20 meme files of 150kb each

4. the cludgy code of vbyte/weight was meant to be a temporary thing that should have been removed years ago to allow full transaction space of 4m to increase transaction count. it was not to just bloat up blocks with 3mb of crap non payment data

5. idiots that think we should just lay down, go sleep and pretend it didnt happen to then allow 4mb of bloaty non payment data which consist of maybe 20 transactions of some meme. those idiots need to be the ones that go quietly into the night and forget themselves

6. suggesting "it doesnt matter" becasue after downloading people can strip/prune..
well it actually does matter becasue full nodes would need to archive data(in a scenario of foolishly holding full files of memes) to then seed to leacher fool nodes that would then prune/strip at the fool node peer layer group

7. bitcoin should not be letting in bloat of non payment data that is 3x of payment data. if people want bloaty crap. do it on a subnetwork. just make that subnetwork actually function, have a real niche and actual utility (unlike certain subnetworks that failed to met expectations and left us waiting years for progress)

7. bitcoin should not become the bloaty meme file library just to offramp users that want btc payment being told to go elsewhere.. it should be the other way round

NFT is not about uploading a whole song/pic/video on a blockchain
NFT is a registry of the HASH ID of a file*.. not contain the whole file itself

yep there are some NFT blockchains that dont even have a unique hash of the file and just some nonce-count ID of version X of a listing..(facepalm)

*EG the "first tweet" on twitter exists in twitters servers(obviously)
but the HTML webpage code for that tweet would be SHA256'd and its that sha256 ID thats put into a NFT blockchain

---

NFT do have utility, but currently the greedy idiots just want to create memes and pay influencers to buy them for a % of the influencers pay, thus created a fake but endorsed value for one version of the item..

if it was used properly for its proper utility of registering ownership of a IP, copyright, patent, landclaim then it can have purpose

but these things should be done on subnetworks of a monetary mainnet. not on the monetary mainnet

just because they took "longer" from proposal-review-testing, does not mean something should then be pushed fast into activation where it does not require node upgrades of majority

the whole "backward compatibility" softening of consensus years ago has its disadvantages
if nodes are not part of the vote nor even validating data.. then that is a bullcrap feature
the whole idea of fullnodes validating fulldata across the network is the whole point of bitcoins invention.. which has been ruined with this bypass trojan generator in 2017


new stuff can be slipped in that can bloat the blockchain where even as "non-standard".. the nodes are to treat it as "isvalid" and not do any validation on such new funky stuff

where by to undo such things then requires a majority consensus mostly in the form of a MAHF to then fix a rule to then reject formats slipped in,

you have CONTINUOUSLY snake oil sales pitched subnetwork bridges as the current scaling solution for years

telling people that there are other options but your idols and your preference is to not touch bitcoin and instead the current option they are trying is a specific subnetwork bridge overpromoted as "is bitcoin" and people should be patient for other options as other options are not needed any time soon. even going as far as in 2019 saying your favoured subnet was only 2 years old and still new and people should be patient. and again each year since that people should treat your favoured subnet as the only option, due to lack of wanting or having core develop others

..
yet now your ok that core speedily pushed through another option that surprisingly allows crapdata bloat on the mainnet. . and your ok with this speedy thing and ok for the bloat and just want everyone to go away quietly and forget that it happened, and just let it continue..
you are shameless

where has your "conservative" mindset gone now, oh wait it only applies when it helps with your preferred services you can profit/gain from

...
you think its a finite resource in regards to users btc transactions. where you want everyone to offramp to your preferred subnet for last 7 years for payment services(routing via middlemen)

but now think bloating the "finite resource" with nonsense non-payment data is acceptable and should be allowed(facepalm), including its rushed activation.

yes.. i know your game.. as do many others..  you dont want bitcoin as a payment tool for individuals. you want it to fail as such so you can offer an alternative network where you can make profits from offering "routing fees" for individuals

you lack any care for security, utility of users value. you just want to profit from it

---

bitcoin devs should concentrate on bitcoin scaling stuff of allowing more transactions FOR PAYMENT UTILITY (p2p digital cash)
(no this is not a time for dev politic idols like the above core'porate shilling hypocrite to think its a "block size debate to allow bloat")

bitcoin scaling is about expanding transaction count utility of allowing anyone to transact to make payments peer to peer without being congested due to bloaty spammy nonsense non-payment data. where everyone is then penalised with confirm delays thus everyone penalised with paying higher fee's to prioritise their payment over the spammy crap

there can be fee formulaes that penalise certain transaction formats (yes it can be done)
and those that want to bloat the space with spamming metadata can be penalised.. without it costing genuine users extra

where those that want to spam with nonsense scripts of funky formats and added metadata can use subnetworks... not the other way round

^
says the guy that for years didnt want to see people buying coffee on the bitcoin
(equivalent amount to a 3rd world populations daily/weekly wage, he didnt want populating bitcoin)
calling bitcoin tx count a "finite resource" mainnet.. and he wanted everyone to off ramp to flawed subnetworks to avoid spamming the bitcoin network as the "solution"
(his main salespitch for his favoured, flawed subnetwork bridge)

---

the bitcoin network should be for transacting of bitcoin for things wanting to be paid for in bitcoin. but should not be abused with metadata/lengthy script spam of data unrelated to simply moving coin to someone else

its weird that a guy is against 3rd world countries moving btc value of a days wage or a 1st world person buying a coffee onchain.. but is ok with spamming the blocks with useless metadata that has nothing to do with buying goods/services between peers..
very odd mindset he has

and he wants everyone to just go to sleep and forget about it and just let it happen

---

my view
bitcoin should be for transacting bitcoin and subnetworks should be the bloaty meta data/script bloat of smart contract stuff of niche sub features