the key to getting locals near you some acceptance of bitcoin is to help bitcoin locally. bitcoin has no brain. its just code after all. it has no arms or legs or body. no one is coming to your location to help, its the people in the area that have to promote it locally to get it accepted locally

a few idea's are (such as the pamphlet idea in the other post)
find local traders that are selling bitcoin where people can buy bitcoin from them. make it easy for them to buy bitcoin by listing how to get bitcoin

list some local places that accept bitcoin
if there is only 1 currently. then ask all those you know what is their regular retailer/service they visit where there is a common theme or desire to want that commonly used business to accept bitcoin(demand) and teach that store about bitcoin, putting the store in touch with an exchange or local service/person willing to swap that stores bitcoin income into fiat to resupply stock.

here in the UK we have 'business networking' events where people meet up over coffee to discuss their business and how other businesses can help each others business grow to expand the local eco-system

basically start your own local community and get people networking together for a common goal.

"the world is your oyster"
can you find 2 people
one thats a major bitcoin buyer, someone to convert bitcoin to fiat for other businesses
one thats a major bitcoin seller, someone to convert fiat to bitcoin for other businesses

or
create a co-operative of multiple people that club together as micro buyers/sellers to work together to do swaps as needed

or a CEX(centralised exchange) for bitcoin that handles your countries fiat type that can do the swaps

then when you have the easy access in and out of bitcoin locally and easy to describe how to get it/sell it, then get the local retailers/services to get onboard too

once you have more locals involved your local customerbase paying you in bitcoin will expand and your employees accepting bitcoin as a wage will be more happy in accepting it as they will have ways to buy something locally or swap locally. thus expanding the bitcoin eco-system in your area

some people start slow. such as pitting a small 5% of employees income into bitcoin as a form of pension savings amount

we see these select attributes in plenty of traders. this is what is defined as the "greed" mentality.

if you are a greedy trader looking to change. this is the priority of change

thats building the "top-up garage(pit-stops)" supply/power plants store.. where they store energy to then distribute at night or on non-windy days to the cars that need energy to charge up when their home solar system is not getting energy on a clear sunny day

but to build 1.3m cars needs a further 1.3m batteries

an average car has a 75kwh battery. allowing for a optimum 4mile/kwh
(300mile range per charge)

1.3m cars end up needing 975,00,000 KWH
97500000kwh
97500mwh
97.5gwh

in total tesla would need 200GW to supply its power banks(pitstop storage/home store/power plants) and the cars

needing 200GW PER YEAR to have cars and their recharge source storage. is a 1.3m car a year thing

there are currently 260m cars in just america meaning to convert all cars would take 200 years

raw data of blockchain and transactions do not measure things in whole bitcoin nor bitcoin plus decimals

its measure is actually infact at the satoshi level. yes satoshis are the base and true units.
bitcoins are an affect effect visual display calculation

changing amount of visual display calculation (decimals) breaks the value measure completely

yes in 2009 it was not 50 coins mined
it was 5,000,000,000 units mined
and thats hard coded into the protocol and block data

the term btc is a basket allotment of sats divided by 100,000,000
where btc exists not as hard data or protocol. but as user interface easy view display

this means in the reality of actual data and rule
it was 210,000 blocks of 5,000,000,000 units mined
then   210,000 blocks of 2,500,000,000 units mined
and so on



if we stupidly change the decimals of easy view display at GUI level . it does require breaking the blockchain and data store rules

and by doing so can easily cause miscount or mis-conversion bugs of creating more value than should exist, and/or the opposite

EG
if there was a 11 decimal system in bitcoin to bastardise bitcoin to look like a stupid subnetwork of flaws..
it would require making block rewards of 2009 change from being 50coin to being 0.05coin

yep changing the calculation from 100,000,000 to 100,000,000,000
makes
5,000,000,000 appear as
0.05,000,000,000

lets not bastardise bitcoins strongest rules just to emulates some flawed buggy network created in 2017 that has not blockchain or consensus or network security of its own

if that network has a bug where its peg of 1:1000 can be broke easily.. thats their problem. lets not break bitcoin to fix their problems

when it comes to import bans
this is a environment decisions of transporting raw toxic chemicals.
the obvious solution is far cheaper and less paperwork/regulation
is to build the final product battery in the country the toxic material is mined in. and then ship the final SAFE product

this means US cant import lithium and make batteries. instead it has to import end-product batteries. or mine lithium domestically inside the US to make batteries inside the US

the added cost of US domestic mining and then domestic production of batteries is a large price hike of cost of batteries

reading the topic again from the start (due to getting too embroiled in the drama of the doomad/blackhat ping pong game)

the first reponse to loyce

this shows exactly the problem

bitcoin only exists on the bitcoin network. so all the binance custody balance, BEP20, BNB, sidechain and LN stuff are not bitcoins.. they are tokens, units or display balances pretending to be bitcoin. but not actual bitcoin

it goes to show people cant tell the difference even though there are risks of using custodians or so called pegged promises all being falsely branded as bitcoin

if you do not have sole-custody of a UTXO to move yourself without other parties sign-off and clear to spend as you deem fit. you dont have bitcoin yourself.

this means locking coin up into multisig of another party or federation, to then play with other balance units on another system. does not mean you have bitcoin. you have an unsecured unsettled iou of potential bitcoin should a withdrawal/broadcast happen at a later date

it gets worse when those other systems/networks fail or are under suspicion of future failures that it tarnishes the actual bitcoin networks reputation.

then we have the ping pong games of the madhatters (doomad and blackhatcoiner) who go around saying:
"bitcoin isnt fit for purpose as a currency for the unbanked"
"bitcoin doesnt have a consensus to decide on rule activations"
"devs can impose any rule change they like without veto or objection from other network users"
"people should prune the data because distributed blockchain is not a thing that needs to be secured"
and
"if people want to transact.. they should use a pegged network and not the bitcoin network"

basically they want to kill off bitcoin to fame up LN

while then pretending they are "bitcoiners"

very shameful tactics by them

---

as for bitmovers idea to use LN out of fear of there being worse..
.. well LN is flawed, buggy, has liquidity issues, bottlenecks, lacks network security of payments, has a weak pegging mechanism many can abuse, can fractional reserve value,

it needed things like watchtowers and revokes because its design was so shoddy and the work arounds of watchtowers/revokes dont even work as 100% fixes to flaws they suppose to solve..
...maybe just maybe a new "system"(for those small niche use cases) is required, that actually works!

a new system could be designed that is actually closer to the bitcoin principles, but without the LN flaws.. a system that works with bitcoin and only for bitcoin... because LN is not the solution it promises to be

anyway
merry christmas to all those not in the madhatter camp.
ill leave you in peace for a few days, goodluck to all who do actually care about BITCOIN and want to learn and research i hope you dont fall down the madhatters rabbit hole

and i suspect ill see the madhatter clan moan and cry and make up more malicious crap about how their beloved altnet is better and a solution and how im just trolling them.

or maybe they can spend the time too enjoying christmas and also maybe take the new year as an opportunity to sort out their motives once and for all

it appears that no money was actually used in the bail
it was a bonded promise meaning $0 upfront

where parents would lose house and have to pay upto $250m if SBF absconds

im sure the courts also have US marshalls parked on the street outside the home 'just in case'

but i do have to laugh
he is released on a bail of said $250m where by no money was needed upfront..
'only in murica' can someone say a huge numbered value, but not need to have real money to back it up

after all isnt the crimes he is alleged of committing, that he promised to pay billions to customers but didnt have the value to pay up.. and yet the courts mention a bond amount but not request money upfront..
seems like its the 'blind leading the blind' in the same  circles as the ones that tripped him up in the first place

lets imagine he did abscond. lets imagine the court demanded parents pay $250m
end result they cant. so they just do an 'alex jones' and file bankruptcy to avoid paying for the rest of their lives

the court must know the bail is a "cant and wont pay" deal. so why offer it.
i find it funny how SBF was released with no cash upfront and yet millions of other people on a $1k bond who cant afford that stay locked up purely because they cant afford $1k due to real poverty

as for media playing up the stories
voyager made the announcements last week not binance. so its not like binance is on a propaganda tour shouting from the hill tops

also it is 2 deals
one for the company($1.02b ($10m upfront deposit,)) which wont start the buying process until january and has until april to finalise(timescales due to voyager bankruptcy bureaucracy/decisions)

the other deal is for "other incremental assets" for $20m which would be the customer data alone(mailing list)

..
i feel binance had plans to buy the data and/or the company months ago way before ftx any drama. but lost due to being outbid by FTX.
FTX didnt pay up and obviously died so it opened up opportunity again to binance.

from a business prospective getting customer data is like a mailing list of people highly interested in a product. its worth something to binance even if others think its some kind of donation to look good.

i dont see this as a "donation to look good" thing. i see it as business plan to get customer data to acquire customers

only in 'e-murica'
a place where you can say a massive number but never need to have the money to back it up

endemic. vs epidemic
a disease controlled in small area.. vs wide-spread and growing within a community

pandemic: globally spread

..

you might want to also look into the BIS m-bridge which will be like the IMF international reserves bank of all CBDC's

..
but as for the conspiracies..
from the current viewpoint of CBDC evolution.. if we were to compare CBDC to the "bitcoin layer 2"

in a CDBC system there are 2 networks at play.. a blockchain network and a smartcontract network..  the central bank is the miner of the blockchain coin creation(mostly premined with no difficulty) between central bank and commercial banks, swapping reserves on their mainnet

below that, the commercial banks(payment services) act as the smart contract hubs of a subnetwork, which manages funds with customers where the commercial services store the routing payment information
the commercial services do the monitoring of their customers (not politicians) and only report suspected users particular suspect event/payment to authorities.. that then if suspicion results in evidence of a crime, authorities ask for a court order to get all routed information of that user and the KYC details of that user and any and all information of that user


im saying all this because i see alot of tinfoil narratives that make it sound like politicians watch everyones purchases every day(governments)

its the commercial banks(businesses) that are watching via algorithms.. not politicians spying on everyone all day.

to understand your enemy, to fight your enemy, learn who your enemy is and which faction of enemy is doing what

your view is follow CORES rules or be treated as opposition
you personally cannot tell where core begins and bitcoin ends where your view is core is bitcoin and every other node that wants something in bitcoin that does not meet cores roadmap is not bitcoin and should fork off. you view is not how decentralisation and consusus works
heck you pretend users get a vote then you spin around in circles saying no one get s to oppose core or tell them to not do things.

---

doomads idea of freedom is core is "the man" and should have freedoms to do what they want without needing consent. where by the mans view of consent is that the community are willing to be in his bed or f**k off if they do not like the abuse put on them without consent

.. well thats rape

at best, it could be seen as core is just a BDSM 'dom' with everyone else in the orgy, 'subs' and anyone fully declining to be in the orgy being rejected and ejected out of the room

true consent is consent before and during the act.
where if majority do not consent, there is no orgy.. end of story
if there was majority consent, it then allows time for all parties to get prepared and ready for safe sex before sex happens and, consent is also agreement during sex

domads view "dont worry you dont need to wear a condom, dont protect yourself or deny me sex, i promise im clean... pinky promise with extra oozy drips" and then treat anyone that denies the man sex, as someone to hate and tell them to fuck off

and where he things "well the man got his genitals inside, so she must have consented"

so whos "freedom" is doomad protecting.. the co-ed community of university students.. or the rapists right to rape/ be BDSM dom, with no choice of equality where no-one else can propose sexual activities/positions to try apart from the core man

---

moving onto your other social drama queen tears of bottom scratching
funny think about that anyonecanspend issue

do you realise that the plan back then was to just start putting segwit tx's into bitcoins tx relay system and blocks without a true consensus activation event where by nodes should upgrade to have code that can verify first, before activation.. .

where by it would have caused lots of nodes problems in their first stupid plan for segwit

well guess what.
they ended up doing a mandatory hardfork(to remove opposition and also THEY(you) pretending its soft to avoid admitting they were wrong)

and they didnt release the wallet function to allow people to create segwit transactions untill the following year because they also realised letting people make segwit transactions before nodes were ready to verify them, would be a problem

yep they bypassed consensus to not need nodes to upgrade and support segwit.. then delayed segwit wallet function until 2018 waiting for nodes to upgrade
again that was a bad way of doing things.. but they were under sponsored contract to get segwit activation by november 2017 at the latest. so they had to do it anyway they could even if it was the wrong way. unsupported way


so they mocked me. but proved my point later on.. by not allowing anyonecanspends tx trick to be widely used before 2018. even though the way they did it, was still not the best way as it abused consensus to get what they wanted

how they proved my point was the stupid next poke of the bear(by the way they activated segwit) that was unfair on the community and the protocol security,

Doomad. when the main maintainer of core speaks out and says core are too centralised[1] . ..
what are you left with to defend? in your fantasy that core is whatever dream you dream about

if you are pretending to defend the developers. actually try to read and look at what the developers are saying.

developers can code what they like on their PC's. but when it comes to what should be actually activated as a rule for the decentralised bitcoin protocol. it should not be a centralised group deciding, whilst ignoring anyone thats not part of the "core" roadmap.. because if its only reviewed and accepted by the small group that make the decisions then thats not how independent peer review works.

i know you believe and dream that if you defend core long enough they will offer you a job. but after so many years you have to realise you are not going to get the dream job you hope for.

i know you like to attack bitcoin by your weird actions of thinking that it helps you defend developers. but have you ever had that moment of thought that you should be defending bitcoin... not the developers of one node brand.

you always think bitcoin and core are one-in-the-same and you think that is how it has always been and always shall. where you want user nodes to not upgrade, not archive and be lulled into the deluded belief they are defending bitcoin whilst the inaction is actually weakening the security of the protocol. all in your game of promoting a sub-par network you think people should use instead, so you can syphon off fee's aswell as full funds due to flaws you describe as features.

but you dont seem to be getting rich from it after 5 years, as your keep upping the stupidity in regards to how much you want people to stop using bitcoin

just accept that after 5 years the amount of coin your small group has managed to lock up. to play on your pegged iou network. is an insignificant amount. where other features have managed to lock up 5x amounts in just 1 year without advertising

if you wish to continue adoring and supporting central points of failure and networks without consensus where you think consensus is a useless feature. .. well thats on you
there is a massive difference between an open community vs open source
there is a massive difference between a decentralised development vs core
there is a massive difference between a onchain solution vs a faulty subnetwork promoted as "solution"
there is a massive difference between a consensus-to-activate(or not) vs forking-to-activate(remove opposition)

if you dont understand consensus and decentralisation and full nodes and open-community, vs the diatribe of crap you support. that again is on you.

you have refused to learn by people teaching you and you refuse to do research. so again thats on you.

instead of finding excuses and playing victim of "why should i research, dont tell me what to do".. maybe stop wasting 5 years defending a dev group that dont need your defence*, and actually do some research for once, stop pleading ignorance and then cry when someone calls you ignorant. stop pleading dumb, and cry when someone calls you an idiot. you are not a victim

*because they admit things you are denying(they plead guilty to centralisation and even brand themselves as such, but you cry how they are innocent)

[1] "One thing is clear: this is a serious project now, and we need to start taking decentralization seriously."
"I realize I am myself somewhat of a centralized bottleneck. "

sounds like you watch too much fox news and dont do much research on that topic.. the death rate due to vaccines is less than death rate of those unvaccinated. sorry to burst your horse tranquilliser induced propaganda

you cant have a defense against something unfelt before.
its like first time you get into a punch up(fight) your not expecting it so you get the worst of it. so you need to train your body incase you enter another fight. you can try to learn by yourself, but take many punches along the way.. or you can get a trainer


previous statement i said put aside, and lowering standards to your level as analogies
 fiat is a common virus. it causes problems no one likes it but people got used to getting it and just continued on with their lives not caring about how negatively the effects are of getting it

CBDC is a mutation virus which occurred due to virus evolution, by getting around some flaws of the first generation my mimicking and understanding the defence.

and bitcoin is the defence against the virus(s)

the issue though if you look into the actions since 2014 of how those in authority have manipulated certain aspects of bitcoins defences. it is slowly turning bitcoin into an auto-immune disease where the evolved defence, attacks its own native defence

side/subnetworks to-from bitcoin advertised as the solution to bitcoin defence flaws. is actually causing more problems for bitcoin.

pre 2014 bitcoin was deemed private property(no regulation needed), then it got declared as a epidemic(mainstream currency) where regulators got involved. and now that it has side subnetworks  its now deemed a commodity(primary asset/mineral/produce that creates other products). where even more regulators are involved
where by even these subnetworks are harming bitcoin rather than letting bitcoin grow naturally onchain

for non physical harm charges i agree, but with not locking some one up for month pre-trial. however there needs to be stiff conditions. such as the ankle monitor, a curfew, limitation of distance/time from home. surrendering passport etc.


he actually does have a drug problem he couldnt even last 10 minutes in a court room without asking the court to go to the bathroom to apply his 'high' inducing emsom patch to stop the shakes and withdrawals

as for trying the insanity defence you presume he will try,

having the cognative ability to plan to wear his courtroom suit when being arrested so he can avoid appearing in a jumpsuit in court, and having a prescription medicine 'legal high' set up to allow him to continue getting high, shows he is not insane.

insanity defence only works when the crime is a short event like a spur of the moment unplanned couple minute murder. it doesnt work when it was a year long+ planned fraud.

my view is

eg
customer PoR: (audit A)
customer balance total      500k coin
customer reserve address  500k coin
value ($) at audit : $8.25bill

customer assets: $8.25bill

company audit:(audit B)
company owned balance sheet: $2bill
company owned assets: $2bill
total liabilities $1.0bill
company status (+/-) = +$1bill

fully audited balances (a+b): $10.25bill
fully audited reserves (a+b): $10.25bill

where the +$1bill status is the company owned assets -  company liabilities
where customer assets are not part of the company status

thus proving no co-mingling and also no shuffling between customer to company occurred
and the company reserves audited where both are seen as totaling the same as all coins under control of company totalling the t

however
to many people have been saying to co-mingle the customer reserves with companies assets and liabilities where in the example above in their view it would be if there was a $4bill liabilities

company status (+/-) = +$6.25bill
which is bad because thats pretending the company could use customer reserves to pay off company liabilities

we all know the SBF on bail news. so not much to talk about there

however the linked article and SEC try to say dont trust proof of reserves because those audits dont include the hosting corporations asset and liabilities. where by PoR is just about customers reserves and wallets to back the customer balances

WELL here is the thing
corporations should not be co-mingling customer assets with corporate assets and so there should be a separation of asserts and a separate audit just for customers assets

yes having a separate corporate audit of corporates financial status also helps weigh how viable a corporation is to be sustainable and continue having their service open, or how close to debt they are to risk bankruptcy which then foolishly locks up customer assets for years and then ends up co-mingling the assets with corporate liabilities to then share out..


a good regulation is customer funds should be separate from a corporations share holders/creditors

thus funds get treated differently and customers can get what they deposited out, away from the drama of a corporate bankruptcy

albeit. with all that said a PoR may prove there are coin reserves that cover balances. however a PoR does not reveal motivations and CEO mindset about plans for the future of being greedy or malicious with regards to customers value
(a PoR does not reveal if a CEO wants to retire to a exotic island with users value)

bitcoin was designed as a sole custody option of a deflationary currency
however features of the last 5 years are about co-signed part-signed options of group authority of value

bitcoin was designed as a peer-to-peer  deflationary digital cash currency
however features of the last 5 years are about off-ramping users to other networks for the "cash" style payments. and have bitcoin as the elitism reserves of corporate hubs


bitcoin needs to get back to how it was architectured in 2009-16 and then open up transact-ability for all  to reduce costs and expand utility

CBDC invented the 2 layer system and bitcoin devs decided to emulate CBDC 2 layer system and become the corporate sandbox test for CBDC

we need to do better then CBDC not become like them

ignoring the topic creators rants about racial politics
ignoring the topic creators rants about government agents

..
bitcoin development does however have a close-nit centralised group
its called core for MANY reasons
they declared it the only reference and new rule proposal source
where by other brands have to shadow follow core

the core group declared themselves the sole arbiters of bitcoin protocol changes. where anyone opposing their roadmap is to be defined as enemies of bitcoin even when the debate is the small group central point of failure

even some EX core devs have admitted core are a central point of failure
including the top(maintainer) for the last 5 years Wladimir van der Laan

they have pushed in "features" to by-pass the byzantine generals solution called consensus and this to has been admitted by such devs that merged in the changes
done using "backward compatible, "mandated" changes without needing majority nodes to upgrade pre activation to support the slid in new features/rules. which is a security risk
activating a new rule without mass node readiness to understand/validate new ruled data is a security risk as it weakens data integrity


this core group are a hierarchy, they have censored moderation where anyone opposing them or even having a critique are removed or banned. which is not the path of their so called "open peer review"

yes there are some low hanging fruit contributors who do spell checks/translations/reviews and acknowledgements just to get their name credit on releases. but these small time contributors are not the main coders of new features

the main coders of new features are also the ones with merge capability so in short they merge in their own plans, while removing and ignoring outsiders idea's

though github is not the place to debate the "team" dynamics/centralisation.. it appears neither is the development boards of this forum nor the development IRC nor the mailing list. becasue they do not like open peer review they simply want their roadmap followed at all costs

or to put it simply


but to expand
those with merge and commit privilege are not just some randomly chosen people. they are known to be following a certain roadmap of corporate sponsored design

bitcoins natural design was "sole custody" yet the main features of bitcoin in the last 5 years are co-custody, group custody features which supposedly meant to offer greater tx count per block(more availability to transact on chain), but never prospers as a solution to allow more sole custody opportunity on the bitcoin network

now ill say it again many devs within core have admitted about the central point of failure of core and have tried to split up the core control. but as of yet, its been a long 5 years with little to no results that have helped bitcoin be what it was suppose to be

alot of work still needs to be done

sorry to inform you,,,

CBDC are using idea's from the hyperledger project.

the hyperledger project is using bitcoin as a sandbox to evolve CBDC("layer 2 solutions")

yep bitcoin innovation for onchain scaling to be a utility for the masses has been choked and helld back, because the bitcoin innovation is calling subnetwork (hyperledger buzzword 'layer 2") as solutions..
where we are stuck with a broken flawed LN network being the service offering for so called scaling. yet after 5 years we have not expanded tx count of bitcoin utility and the adoption rate of LN is super small because its a crap network and not the solution we need

yes as a currency bitcoin is deflationary and beats any fiat/CBDC as a currency unit
but then bitcoin network has been held back for the last 5 years to not innovate bitcoin. with sill sub-par networks that have broken promises and reputation of bitcoin as a viable currency

i love bitcoin, but we have been choked and strangled for the last 5 years

the problem is

LN is not a bitcoin feature that manages to do something or solve something for bitcoin and purely for bitcoin
even poon in his whitepaper admits LN is a multi-currency system

yet due to idiots selling it as a bitcoin thing, a bitcoin solution. devs are giving up on scaling BITCOIN
(take the congestion onchain last month FROM JUST ONE EXCHANGE. bitcoin needs more onchain capacity to cover utility of multiple businesses and more especially individuals)

so yes it is negatively affecting bitcoin even if i dont use LN even if 99.99% of people dont use it.
 it still affects bitcoin via its existence as the solution. thus bitcoin issues do not get sorted

LN's usage is super low but its existence has stifled bitcoins usage growth and innovation onchain
you know the song.. ("bitcoin shouldnt scale to more txps because LN solves transaction scaling")
bitcoins last few "innovations" at bitcoin protocol level have not been to evolve bitcoin utility. it has been to offer gateway transaction formats for subnetworks..

there is the security flaws, the bugs, the liquidity issues.. all being branded as bitcoin features, yet they are not
they are flaws, and those flaws are bringing a bad reputation and a negative view onto bitcoin due to the brand stealing crap of LN
(el salvador experiment failure (september 2021-december. was nothing to do with the bitcoin network, it failed due to an LN project pretending it was bitcoin))
i facepalmed in september with the "LN is making bitcoin successful" "LN LN LN LN LN"
then when it failed same idiots "bitcoin failed el salvador"
so in december i was laughing that they tried to limit their exposure and pretend LN had nothing to do with the el salvador crap the el salvadorians were exposed to, and then i facepalmed again when they tried to say bitcoin was the problem (cheeky f**kers!)


as for you thinking its under funded.. ooh please!!!
the main devs of LN are paid.
you think rusty, a.bosworth, and such work for free?(i name just a couple for examples, but loads of them are corporate funded to work on lightning)

did you know LN is actually an invention pre 2017 and its inspired by the hyperledger stuff, which the dcg and its subsidiaries blocksteamis funding
the dev groups are funded

..
in short if bitcoin was to have an off-chain solution to various features that have been stiffled and refused to be included into bitcoin protocol... LN is not the answer/solution..
 a new network needs to be made for such off-chain promises without the LN flaws to give actual solution.. or more simply. re-boot bitcoin innovation and scale BITCOIN not other sub-par networks brain and brand and reputation stealing

LN community has had 5 years to figure their crap out. and yet more people are locking funds to wbtc and taproot based networks rather than what LN pretends its usage accomplishments are