though he has exposure of US gov.. where some think "uncle" grensler at the SEC will pardon him and just slap him with a fine

he is also being investigated also by the Bahamas authorities.. so THEY could find him guilty.

the Bahamas police announced that the government are doing investigations into possible criminal action


so while some think he can escape american prison. there is a chance of being locked up in a bahamas prison

when i receive payment in bitcoin i know i received it and its confirmed.. settled done..
its not a game of promises of trust that a state/commitment/funding lock hidden beneath the GUI you cant see will settle up correct..
its not a game of sleepless nights making sure a middle man isnt trying to spend value i thought i might get to keep but may not get unless i close off and remove myself from the channel/their control/risk ..

in bitcoin when someone pays me its done in full where there IS a UTXO that backed it. and the amount i get is clear and settled and final.

in LN you cant make the same promises

in LN people can see a msat balance and "think" that it is good. and release product for delivery to the msat sender .. but find out way later when settling up the seller got screwed by the channel partner

bitcoin actually has many consensus rules about the pre-confirm relaty network that check for faults in the payments.
bitcoin has lots of rules that protect about faked balance of holders
bitcoin has many rules to ensure that middle men cant manipulate value

LN cant say the same

i have to remind you there are multiple other flaws of LN but it seems you lot cant even get out of your utopian cloud of dreams to be risk aware of just one issue.

---

as for you saying its just a single hacked wallet issue of a single victim scenario...

you again forgot that a major service (thor turbo) showed up a major flaw via having a large amount of users thinking "its a feature" where no one was critical to think. "actually this can abuse people"

so your so called "all we need is to review wallets" security check is crap

bitcoin has actual rules it mitigate many "hacked wallet" threats of faking balance. or faking receipt
yep if it aint on the blockchain... it didnt happen.. pure and simple.

smart contracts (bitcoin prospective) are not smart. or if they are they are not used properly to maximum effect

they are just glorified multisig where it diminishes someone sole custody to be cooperative custody

yes its one step forward and moves a bit away from full centralised custodian and atleast gives some % control back to the depositor. but its yet to actually be a "next craze" event

..
i would say after a wave of craze over "virtual land/property real estate"
the next wave after that would or could be proof of ID, followed by things like reputation/credit rating.. and education credential stuff

ok lets actually answer your question

and your using memed buzzwords of trying to pigeon hole people into a group.. using broken narrative which you dont understand the real concepts that were being asked years ago

before 2013 there was actually a CODE/Berkeley database issue where 0.5mb was the block limit.. it was only found when user activity requiring more tx per block reached that limit..

so lets use that as an old implied limit..

removing that implied limit of 0.5mb(berkeley bug) and moving moving to 1mb and then in 2017 to ~ 1.4mb. did those events cause more centralisation..?

did it cause more centralisation of full nodes.. where there is only 1 central point of failure....?  .. answer is NOPE!!
ok got it?

hmm lets see how many full noders existed 2013 vs 2017 vs 2022

oh look there are more full nodes now than in 2013

and again
even the econo-political devs of core deem 4mb as not a network centraliser/threat

just removing the cludgy econo-political code that restrains the tx data to 1.4mb average.. to allow full 4mb a block full utility of more tx count and actually return to clean actual byte count. wont break the network

---

i did not nor ever have supported bch... you absolute social drama queen of ignorance..
grow up

i supported progressing bitcoin [not to be confused with other promoted networks brand stealing the name] to allow more transactions on the bitcoin network. on the main net of bitcoin and not via some other crappy side network people want to push people onto and away from bitcoin

where progress is of more transactions not shammy scammy tricks of saying:
here have more size but not more tx count
have more data space but we will multiply the bytes to make the seem bigger but still restrict the tx count
here have some new tx format thats "cheaper" because we made legacy more premium

my support was actually giving more tx count per block on bitcoin mainnet where its not filled with shoddy code that has manipulated peoples views and aimed to get people off the network

..
if you want to find someone that is promoting centralising the blockchain.. speak to your girlfriends who are trying to get more people to prune(not have decentralised blockchain on their nodes while pretending they are full nodes).. because THEIR game is to centralise the blockchain by having less copies of the blockchain distributed.. not me

look at who is advocating and supporting the use of pruning and promoting it to people that stipulate they want to be full nodes

yes but you dont need to print money or multiply the supply to move the price

with shares if there is a company holding of 1m shares. and a share is selling for $10
that creates a valuation of $10m
to make that valuation 20m means someone has to buy a share for $20

but with bitcoin
its not about minting more coins or printing/spending more money to buy coins

do you know the easiest way to get a valuation of $317b change to $3.17T without a buyer needing to spend more than $1.67
and without a seller or market having to offer 190m coins of circulation

yep instead of buying just $1.67 for 0.0001btc
                                buy $1.67 for 0.00001btc (10x LESS coin)
(seller offer less coin on offer not more. )
yep you can 10x a cap by offering less coin

you can also -10x by offing more decimals. inside the current 19m circulation

yep no extra coins in circulation. no extra fiat spent. instead its just adjusting the decimal

do you know that the average investor spend a minnow trader spends per month in 2012 vs 2022

you may think going from $16 to $16,000 it means the minnow trader of 2012 now has to spend 1000x more.. but no

what you actually see is market orders for minnows still are the same monthly amount average. but they just get 10000x less coin for that amount

..
after all.. this recent quarter
many are claiming FTX is a $32b company that disappeared
it never had $32b

it just had a valuation struck by someone investing $400m for under 1%

valuations do not indicate real utility. it just falsely promotes something as being popular

there were other exchanges that have 25m-60m customers with lower valuations but the destroyed company of a previous $32b valuation only had ~1mill customers..

meaning only 4% popularity compared to its main competitor and under 2% compared to the most popular exchange.

so dont use valuations to gauge popularity
..
lets word it one more way.

lets make an altcoin of 1trillion premined coins. and sell 0.1coin for $1
BOOM $10trillion valuation

meaning bitcoin $320bil is only 3.2% popular in comparison to the alt.

..
so as said dont measure of assets popularity/utility based on caps/valuation

never use market cap as a measure of utility, EVER!

market cap is not a measure of dollars backing an asset.

whether its crypto or a fiat company share. they are meaningless valuations

bitcoins market cap
$16.5k price x ~19,218,000 circ = $317b

one person can with just $1.67 buy 0.0001btc
and change the market cap to = $320b
(ofcourse that price wont stand for long due to other uses also trading and moving the price milli seconds later)

yep for just a coffee price one person can add  $3billion to market cap where that $3b extra cap is not backed by $3b withdrawable dollar

it does not require governments. it doesnt require huge userbase of new users. nor huge fiat deposited. just a cup of coffee by one user

PoS coins are usually staked in pools/custodians. so no one cares to mine it or use the coin actively so no one cares to be a full node of blockchain security for them coins

when it comes to PoW (real asset coins)
people want to protect the network and support it.
(disclaimer to counter act a troll girls shinanigans. people are not forced or need to be a full node, but if they want to be, they should be a full node not a fool node)

bitcoins lack of scaling onchain is enon-politically hindered with silly excuses that bitcoiner full node users have a physics technical impossibility of being a full noder, with silly games of it being 1999-2005 right now

technology can and does grow over time. what seemed impossible in 1999 is seen as basic expectation now

things like the 4mb weight is for 5 yeasrs(along time in technology terms) been deemed safe. and yet cludgy code is impeding that 4mb utility with bad math to keep it hindered at a 1.4mb average block. reducing the utility while allowing congestion and fee premiums

since that 4mb safe announcement 5 years ago technology has moved on further still.

4mb block is a growth rate of 210gb a year. i have something the size of the nail of my thumb that can hold more than that.

a hard drive able to have a life cycle of average 5 years replacement(most upgrade their pc's in that timescale)
is 840Gb which is at a cost of not even $1 a month

yet while crying about $1 a month cost they also applaud that $1 a tx is reasonable

there are people that pay more money upfront on games consoles, where they then subscribe to services at $7 a month which use more bandwidth and hard drive space in that sale life cycle.

yet for some strange reason want to say bitcoin is broke/cant work at those same levels of activity for millions of users. and then they suggest people should stop using bitcoin and use another network

speaking of crypto crazes(not just bitcoin crazes)

NFT are currently under utilised, and seen as just 'art' copyright credits

when VR/gaming starts to replace standard webpages. where people can actually interact with webstores in a 3d environment then the NFT of 'land registry' and 'real estate' kicks in.

people wont just buy land plots on a VR server where there are premiums if retailer wants to be closer to VR mainstreet. but then inside their own 3d webstore they also have tokens to buy floor space/advertising inside their store. so that product brands can pay to be upfront in your face as avaters walk into the webstore or cheaply sat at the back corner of the webstore
...
blockchains are currently underutilised
they are seen as only store of value currency tools

there are a multitude of things blockchains can be used for over a global scale of nations, or international corporate offices or just whole normal people in different countries wanting a unified data set they can all trust

take a international education system where students across the planet can earn their diploma credits and have it all visible for employers to see.
Where the student can also use those credits internationally to enter further education at X level rather than having to start at the bottom.

even ID systems. whereby you can register an ID onto a blockchain. and due to having private key/signing privileges, you can choose who you give your 'proof of ID' to. and give them a key. where by if you find another business/entity uses that ID hash if they do not have the key to prove your authorisation. they breached your privacy. making suing them easier. and proving it in court easier to win

i should laugh.. but i think it deserves a (facepalm)

you might want to talk to the devs of the main wallets you speak of which all have flaws individually and flaws in unison to all wallets because of faults in the bolts which they all follow but are not enforced by any consensus structure.

LN wallet devs have admitted their flaws and losses.

yep even LN devs have lost funds in the main big brand wallets they developed. losses locally in channel with other same brand users.. . and from just using LN cross-platform with different brands

LN has many flaws

..
but i see what you are subtly implying
that issues only affect the users within the channel of those using a duff wallet so everyone else should not care to implement rules for LN as a whole to protect users.. in short blame the user not the lack of protection on the network that could and should protect users from things

EG
(again)
LN could as part of the [bolt advised] network gossip of establishing route maps. inspect the channel ID's and check on all of the ID's respond to a confirmed funding lock. rather than a temp ID. thus they only keep a 'mempool' of legit channels. thus they only gossip-relay to other nodes a legit list. thus any illegitimate channel is not gossiped. thus taken off the network. or left invisible to the network
 making it difficult for a service that wants to abuse channel users with unbacked msats for instance, from being able to be routers or have routes due to not being seen by the network

but nah.. you lot dont care about reducing risk and problems. you just want to call everything "user error" and brush it under the carpet

users should really try to keep an eye on the user agreement of how it treats its customers.

if (when open) fidelity operates more like greyscale than coinbase when it opens. because trusts do not treat the coin deposited as the customers. the customers are given shares which represent an % of an allotment of the trusts holdings

if (when open) fidelity operates more like coinbase than greyscale when it opens. because exchanges can have terms that dont let users get their funds out if unregulated or if they have certain business terms

from learning about many exchanges and services in recent weeks. dont just blindly adore and believe in a brand because you recognise the name..
read the terms of service/user agreement for how it treats the customers assets and be risk aware

seems a few people in this topic are already blindly hyping up and getting exciting and just taking things on utopian face value that its all rosy and sunshine..

handing any funds to a custodian/trust/exchange should be where people are educating each other to be cautious and check on who they are giving funds to.

fidelity is not trading crypto right now. its a invite for updates to future possible trading platform later on

anyway lets review their terms to see how it treats customers

https://www.fidelitydigitalassets.com/terms-of-use
they dont have a "user agreement" yet but in the general terms of use a couple highlights

in short
1. they don't prompt you to read / press an accept terms update button
2. at time of posting. its not regulated in the US and operates as a trust not a exchange
3. they can cut and run any time, any reason without notice and you cant sue them or try to claim against them

[1].
[2].


3.
the part(3) is strange. because most GOOD services still allow account access, but will suspend the 'trading/market' option/service within a users account. so that users can still see balances and also withdraw balance while being suspended from 'using the service to do any trading'

it seems if they ban you. they really do ban you, rather then suspend your trading activity and asking you to take your money and leave

the part(2) think of them currently more like greyscale rather than coinbase (totally different business models)


the part(1) is strange. instead of emailing an announcement of term changes prompting you to read it. they expect you to check it regularly. this means of you are a custodian hoarder, that doesnt day-trade. your expected to regularly inspect them, rather then them inform you of any changes to your contract with them

in all my posts i have been telling you the scenario.. multiple times
1. that its an app your service provider asked you to use.
     - much like how thor turbo got many people to use theirs
          - where it compromised a feature
              - where no one cared to see it as a flaw/bug

2. the app changed the conversion rate from 1:1000 to 1:1,000,000

3. alternative other scenario: is the value is on a inbound msat allotment to you on your partners commitment/side
..
and you decide to ignore it all to then say your ignorant:
(im paraphrasing(not verbatim))
'in utopian best case scenario of there not being any manipulation there wont be any manipulation'
(facepalm)

you might aswell with your mindset be going around saying
'but if ftx didnt scam users users wouldnt have been scammed..' ignoring the fact that the scenario everyone else is seeing is that ftx scammed users

you are totally going so far left fields.. its going to take you a while to come back to the discussion


its about the PAYMENTS that convert not the wallet
its about the 1:1000

to quickly address your wallet left field..
which as proven by examples like thor turbo.. many people downloaded and not seen it as a flaw and so just accepted msat balances that didnt represent anything of real value they can fairly claim later..

now lets get back to the 1:1000 issue AGAIN
so lets try again because i think you think its just a problem about ur partner paying you like a small insignificant problem only affecting one persons receipt of payment from only one person
      x    y
      |     |
      v     v
A->b->c->d

you are D
imagine C gives you 'inbound' balance on his side
thus you have no real state or utxo on your side. to claw back

now no matter if a b c x y tries paying you. C gives you fair msat amount. but it converts to an amount thats alot less than expected
in actual bitcoin when people may me.. im gonna get the correct amount.
GET IT YET

the issue is on the conversion.. where u presume your getting 1000sats (1m msat). but your only get 1sat x weeks later

with actual bitcoin
if 5different people wanted to pay me i know im getting the correct amount because there is no C partner to mess with my value

its a implementation which the network cannot secure against... because there is no consensus

is like your saying..
because there is no road network safety(highway code) its not a road network safety problem its a driver problem

remember no one was calling out the thor turbo as a flaw... shows how great the review process was..

and no dont go playing dumb ignorant and deceptive to say that it will only affect one user if it was applied. we already see thor turbo and they had many users.

and no its not as if whatever silly bitcoin mainnet scenario you tried to pull

bitcoin nodes actually have integrity checks and things like RBF and many other things. lus there is no co-sign both balance system in bitcoin
its just a you want my goods pay me $100 if i only receive $10 confirmed you dont get the goods until tyou send me the other $90

..
in LN payments of msat are sent meaning you think you got paid 1,000,000msat..  you hand goods over. and month later at broadcast realise you only got 1sat

so now you admit the 2 part process.. divide(convert) and cut)round)
now this whole conversation has been about the red divide part not your blue cut/round.. got it?

no you have been obsessing about rounding not the 1:1000 rate of the converting.. but now you have caught up with the conversation.. dont step backwards



the scenarios are different and you know it

by not being settled up when you sell a product. the person can give you fake msats in a multitude of ways that never flourish into being real sats .. and you wont know it for the usual x months you dont want people broadcasting for.. because you wont want the broadcasting every payment just to check every payment. as thats a sillty thing to do

however in bitcoin if i get bitcoin i know i got bitocin via a multitude of ways. its settled and i can see its settled so then i can release the goods knowing i been paid in full

you have every state??
seems you have gone back in your hole and forgot the whole idea of LN and its flaws mentioned in many posts..

yea.. tell that to someone that is using thor turbo or a phone app with their own key but just not full node access.. where the app is wrote by a malicious dev

oh wait they cant broadcast anything because:
either:  they cant spend . because .. guess what. they dont have a OTXO backing the input
or: cant find the state because "not for humans to read"

heck you again forgot the conversation about the states...

so lets reign it back into the other examples
a. IF say thor turbo changed mSatScale uint64 = 1000 to 1,000,000*
you wont get the amount you were promised
but also
b. they can set it up that because ur using their software. they can do many things
c. they can just do their 0 confirm trick
d. the state if you could find one would be in their favour
e. a multitude of other flaws you are not ready to understand

also
for instance imagine the channel balance is supposed to be:
you 1,000,000msat other party 1.000,000msat

where on screen display it looks like you have 1,000,000msat. but in the state you only have *1sat

you wont know about it until you broadcast.

and your revoke is not to grab what you think it is grabbing because what your broadcasting is different to what they can

..
put it short..
if they had a revoke for their own broadcast to claim everything.. they can steal it all too..

revokes are not for your broadcast for you to use on your own broadcast to steal everything in your broadcast. because thats just theft

 its for a key you hold.. for a output on their contract they could broadcast which if they broadcast you can penalise.

there is still a big problem about the pegging/locking structure of subnetworks and sidechains where once on the other network there is a multitude of ways parties can scam/con and deceive each other

lets not make the craze related to a thing that is supposedly bitcoin related.

most of those systems of sub/side networks have bad risks and should not be treated as good as the mainnets they represent

there is too much of a push of silly fools wanting to game the system for foolish self profit who will try endlessly to call out the mainnets as unfit/broke to pull users to these subnetworks just to rip them off unless they are part of the club of scammers

we have seen it with stable coins and other tokens in the last 9 months

bitcoin should concentrate on bitcoin onchain features that do not break accounting proof of taint back to coinbase reward(some are proposing breaking this security feature)

develop it more onchain to allow more onchain usage because in the last month we have seen congestion caused by just one exchange. imagine if more than one exchange or subnetwork were to close out  accounts

then progress the offramp stuff for short use temporary services of niche utility. rather then trying to push everyone off the bitcoin network, to other networks which are not secure.

now im hearing word of "faith" and "trust"

one more time because your ignoring it

lets step away from the phone app custodian you and bet to the NODE scenery..

if YOU press the close channel button to broadcast YOUR copy. your broadcast would have a bad value because you were unable to read the state before the broadcast.

but because its YOUR broadcast. you cannot penalise yourself to get all the funds back to you.. however they can

because your broadcast contains a revoke key for which thy can use to revoke from you

the point of penalties is not to penalise yourself to win everything before the other..
that not how the penalties

..
oh and my examples of flaws. are not the limit of the flaws. they are the introduction of using simple examples to atleast give you a step to move forward from ..   of many flaws. which because you keep tripping up not wanting to understand the first stage its hard to progress the observations when i have to keep circling your holes and pulling you out only for you to fall into again head first, like someone that fears the light

phone wallets in general dont do general checks. you admit:
(glad you finally admit somewhat to it.. dont back peddle(though i know you do at your final paragragh of post) now keep stepping forward)

your phone wallet does not check integrity. especially if phone wallet is made by the service that told you to download their preferred wallet

even in lateral and bilateral channels. away from central services, you dont see the states behind the GUI.. so they are not checked.. (ill highlight later where you agree*)

as for penalties..
if YOU broadcast and see that instead of your presumed (1,000,000msat) 1,000sat you only got 10sat.. you cannot penalise a broadcast you sent. they can penalise you if you sent an old state out of order

but lets say they did broadcast while you slept
yea you penalise them where they also set the penalty to be.. oh yea in their favour because you were using their wallet!!

oh you also have to be online to spot their broadcast. and then use THEIR WALLET app to hope you have a state somewhere that can penalise them..

but as you said
and hope any state you can find gives you balance you deserve..

all these things are not things the network secures against.

all a user sees is a incoming msat balance and the just say yes please.. they are not involved in some contract interrogation process of agreeing on rates and ratios of conversions where they sit at a table and negotiate.

so yea goodluck

here is jsut one tip.. although you lot do not deserve it
for the NODES that do network gossip. they could (but doubt you'd care to implement it) as part of the gossip. check that all channel ID's of route channels do actually represent a funding tx which makes that channel liquid/solvant. thus you add it to the possible route list. where as if its using a temp ID or other bypass to create a channel(many ways to falsify things to create a channel) then you dont add it as a possible route. thus when you pass on that gossip. others can see the abuser is banned


thor turbo proved you wrong.. shame you didnt observe

other interesting facts.
of the markets of presumed $$... majority is tether not actual $$
its USDT not USD

so they are not trading in and trading out actual fiat much.
they are just using arbitrage tools to cycle funds in circles to boost volume

you pretend to talk about choice. but then applaud that there is no choice or that someone else is threatening your idols.

so you call out that bitcoin is unfit for use for an underclass. and people should use other networks as their only choice or use a fool node pretending that its a full node by you trying to stroke their ego and say that its the same thing(facepalm)
or if they dont like your games. if they do not like the way a central dev team plan things.. you tell them to go fork off to another network

so YOU try to make it sound like bitcoin should only be used as a payment rail for reserve settlements. for the elite exchanges and subnetwork hub managers to settle on, where mere normal users should instead use other networks and be bunched into being managed by hub managers having discretion over if they will sign and agree with a payment you want to make. which they can refuse and hold hostage

and when that doesnt work to convince people to downgrade from wanting to be an actual full node.. YOU join the hymn sheet singers that technology is stuck in the 1990's-2005 era where being a full node is for only the rich and people should use the fool node setting pretending it means the same thing as full yet again

so YOU then try to sway those that want to be a full node not to be.. and instead be a fool node, even when they say in this topic they want to be a full node. by you pretending they are a full node when infact they become a fool node if they followed your advice. and you are not giving them an INFORMED choice of what the actual difference is

please grow up