LN has no consensus, when it sends onion payments telling other nodes to pay other nodes X msat.. that those Msat must always be equal to /1000 to represent sats at the other end where the wallets of the 2 destined partners channel must convert the msat amount of an onion into a sat amount of a commitment..
yep a deceptive wallet could autopilot a commitment to convert to only / 100 but blindly accepted the routed payment thinking it was getting 10x more..

just be risk aware of what can happen in a network of user nodes/litewallets (especially lite wallets are more at risk) that has no consensus and where most users dont review code or look at raw payment/tx data. they just blindly accept what they see on the GUI and realise after the fact that they have been deceived

be honest now..
can any LN user TRULY and honestly tell me that everytime they see that they have received Xmsat on the gui. that they have been able to truly easily or at all possible been able to find the real raw subsequent commitment update and checked that it translated into the exact sat amount they suppose to get.. or are they blindly trusting the wallet and just think the wallet is unbreakable and full proof

very few people know of the extra utility function bitcoin has compared to fiat money.

for instance i can move wealth to a family trust or a offshore wealth store in bitcoin without the need of bank managers, accountants, tax forms or lawyers to draw up paperwork and without notaries to witness it.
i just simply make a multisig, and give keys to whom i want involved in the trust/offshore system. or they can provide their own keys to fdorm the multisig. and then simply pay the multisig address.. simple. no middlemen required no legal contracts no managers, accountants or lawyers.

bitcoin also represents a unit. a unit you can redefine as anything. you can lock up a unit and then represent it elsewhere as something else. its a reserve to then use and create other networks where you could represent 1btc as 'bunnies' and then create a 'bunny' network

you can create NFT's too
lock up Xbtc. and then create a nft network where you split that reserve into shares or units of a NFT brand. where you only produce X amount of NFT brand products that are registered with their own representation of the reserved/locked btc. thus giving them value as a way that people can destroy their product and subsequent NFT and redeem some btc, or keep it and use that value peg as a value to measure the nft against

bitcoin can be locked into addresses and then make physical 'Casascius' coins

there are many many things that you can do.
represent an allotment of sats as a award for some competition trophy/school gold star token.

you can even program an algo that turns on a machine and performs a certain task depending on how many sats are confirmed to an address

NeuroticFish  i agree with your example..im just adding more context

this is more of a reply to 'reasonspace' to add more detail to NeuroticFish's  mention of art having value

Art has value(economic). the acquisition cost people wont sell below. but the next auction PRICE is not the value.
art has values(aesthetic/desire/demand/provenance) ..dont confuse the (economic) value with values(the aesthetic/desire/provenance)

values and value are different categories.

think of the sentiment values(aesthetic/desire/demand/provenance) of art as the values(utility/function/features) of houses and bitcoin.
the values. help cause some speculation of the price above the economic VALUE of something comparative on the market.

the values(aesthetics/desire/demand) of a van gogh increase the price above the value of a lesser known artist.

yes people can be duped into buying things that they see as having values(aesthetics/utility/desire/demand) and pay a premium for it. and then get slammed when they see the values are none existent. like the theranos company that faked values(utility) of diagnosing hundreds o diseases with a single drop of blood.

but the underlying value(economic) is not the same number as the price paid due to the values(sentiment of the utility/benefit/features aesthetics)

value is not found from those 4 things..
bitcoin is more then a currency.. bitcoin has function and feature of utility beyond just being a currency
bitcoin is not just the unit of account. its also the tool for the unit. a tool that can do many things


people trade houses.. but that does not mean a house is just a currency. a house does more then get traded

houses are not fungible. different houses are treated differently and not easily convertible. there is no like-for-like swap
houses are not divisible.
houses are not easy to exchange

so houses fail the first 3 rules too

..
bitcoin does condition 1
1btc is 1btc. there are mixers that swap 1btc for 1btc. every transaction 'destroy' a utxo of an amount and create a new utxo of another amount with a different owner. so it passes condition 1
yep you can easily convert 2 utxo of 0.5btc to be 1 whole btc. thats the most basic feature of the bitcoin blockchain.
so it passes condition 1

bitcoin does condition 2.. there are 8 decimals. it can be easily divided 100,000,000 times
so it passes condition 2
.
bitcoin does condition 3
its easy to exchange. every transaction on the blockchain is an exchange of ownership.
so it passes condition 3.

as for long term value
.. stop looking at the PRICE.
when you buy a house or gold. there are 2 lines you need to look at.. one is not easy to spot.

take the real estate market.
dont just look at the house price.. instead look at the houses in the region to compare.. (real estate buzzword: comps) .. and then evaluate the house price in comparison to see if the PRICE is good and near VALUE(lowest comp) or if its being sold at a premium(above/at highest comp)

a house PRICE is not the value. the regions 'comps' is the value and although you might buy a house above 'comps'(value) the store of value still exists via a underlying value everyone in the region refuses to sell below.
(the bottom line cheapest 'comps')

even in the housing market. dont expect guarantee house price profits.. because the market can rescind and return to the lowest comps of recent years. buying a house at a premium does not make it great value to get great ROI sooner.

bitcoin has a 'comp' too
take the lowest cost to mine on the planet. the cost no one else can acquire bitcoin for..
thats the 'comp' value.
then take the periodic ATL (the all time LOW.. not the high.. the LOW) of every say 2-3 years (normally 4 year cycle)
and thats the value line below the price.

you can use this line to then evaluate if the PRICE is near VALUE or if its at premium

..
if you think bitcoin has no value then you must think house prices have no value.
bitcoin is an asset. its more then a traded property. it has function it has utility it has features that make it have use.


bitcoin can do things far easier then fiat.
you can move value between addresses without needing to request a bank authorise it.
you can set up an offshore wealth store without needing lawyers, business registrations, bank account registrations
you can set up family trust funds without bank managers, lawyers and contracts with middlemen
plus many many more things you can do with bitcoin

whales underwater?... where else would they be.. flying in clouds..
nah whales are where they are suppose to be.

the water is warm. come join. you dont want to dry out on the land. the water is the place to be. nice and refreshing and full of life.

if you want to chip away at the tip of an iceburg above water, you do so. but most of us old hoarders and whales enjoy the water and we play the waves.

but feel free to stay up in the high ground. waiting for the tsunami wave that may never come.

alot of sceptics bring up "tulip mania"
thinking tulips did not survive the 17th century and they all died..

so lets do some history.
not all tulips were priced at high prices.. infact it was only the most rarest of tulips

for instance the Semper Augustus, was the rarest of all. and only a few bulbs were sold. and it sold during tulip mania for the price of a house
but regular tulips were not priced at a house value. but at the price of a loaf of bread.
only one or two bulbs were sold for the price of a house.. (6x minimum wage of years salary)

where thousands and millions of bulbs were still being traded in the 17th century at normal prices..

even today you can buy regular tulips for a loaf of bread value. and rarer tulips today for more..

people think after it has been several hundreds of years that no one buys tulips anymore.. they are wrong. people still do and people still make money selling tulips. (visit any garden centre and surprise yourself with a bunch of tulips sitting behind a price tag)

just think about that. tulips still exist and bought and sold today..

oh.. and even in the 21st century..
in 2005 there was a rare orchid that sold for $200k..
,,, i guess the mania didnt end (Shenzhen Nongke Orchid)

here was the idea..
of true decentralised consensus..(before core even existed)
instead of everyone downloading one version from one location.. and accepting that as the defacto version and all other versions treated as competition..
people had versions using different languages, from different brands that were not "competing" but cooperating.
thats the point of bitcoin decentralisation and the solution to the byzantine generals problem.. cooperation not competition..(well before 2015 that was the point)


unlike the 2015-2022 days.. the 2009-2014 days were actually sharing idea's.. there was no "that proposal is ours, dont steal it dont put it into your software its ours, you dont didnt even put our brand into the copyright, you script kiddie thieves" . instead people could copy idea's and add features into their brands. and that was the point.
cooperation not competition..

when there was a feature people wanted. people would put them into their favoured brands and the proposer was happy to see it in other brands.. and if the all diverse favoured brands all got majority agreement to flag for the activation then and only then did it upgrade.. until that point no change happens before majority.. . thus no issue with what you pretend is a problem
this did not activate simply by having competing brands.. things only activated where there was cooperating brands.
so there was no 'out od sync' problems

bitcoin in 2009-2014 had the solution to the byzantine generals problem.. now in 2015+ the core prefer to be the only general to avoid having to share control with other generals..

by this i mean,  its like satoshi had his own codebase he tweaked but followed the rules. hal had his codebase he tweaked but followed the rules.. neither hal or satoshi dictated or mandated a change.. or forced each other to obey by mandate..

they had proposals for new features and published the proposals, when both hal and satoshi and others put them into their own codebases and other did too they all found they had the majority to activate the new feature.. and it activated

read alot of the old posts on this forum before 2011 where people were randomly putting code into the forum and everyone then putting it into their own codebases without having to wait for a release candidate that included it from a central repo..

forget thinking of competition and think of cooperation.. forget central repo. think diverse codebases all enjoying each others involvement and cooperation and helping each other out

the issue is core(2015+) wanted to change many rules quick without wanting to be subject to a community vote,,  and didnt like having to persuade other clients brands so wanted to remove the brands out of the network so that the activations happened on core terms, with cores time frame (the main devs were employed and had a contractual timeframe deadline that would award them a large amount of bitcoin if they got it activated by the deadline.)

what core should do is instead of making proposals based on political.business contracts behind the scenes that make them money for implementing.. they should instead make proposals the actual main wide diverse community want and would be happy to see.
emphasis make proposals for their feature that the wider community wanted where the wider community would have accepted.. thus not need to force them off the network.. or madatorily scare them into accepting even without having the ful code base to validate the feature..
but core only cared about features needed by their back-end business sponsors contractual deals from certain corporate groups (blockstream and the barry silbert group) (the ones that made the liquid sidechain and LN that required segwit to allow liquid and LN to actually semi function better. (but still flawed, so i still laugh)

anyways back to the point
EG when they promoted their first version of segwit in 2016(needed for LN, and other pegged sidechains like liquid)
not even 50% of the actual bitcoin community wanted it even 7 months later (~may 2017) and the other brands seen no bitcoin large benefit, and just a benefit to the offramp to altnet groups altnets

however their spring 2017 variant was a more acceptable 2mb base block 4mb weight block proposal. this was a step forward majority was willing to accept...(but also was the mandated part.. to really push the activation)
that helped trigger more adoption of segwit but core and the silbert group re-negged on that promise on august 2nd by not fulfilling the 2mb base limit for legacy after august 1st because by august 1st 2017 core became the defacto client left on the network and didnt need to compromise to the second version of segwit that got them a little more acceptance.. (it was a bait and switch along side the mandatory game)

..
anyways..
the whole
'let core devs do whatever they want.. dont let anyone tell core what they cant do' mindset you have seen a few fangirls above mention a few times.. is not consensus...

true consensus is let anyone propose something and actually get them to help have the other brands want it too by having a feature that the wider community actually want. by offering it out willingly to all brands to implement

heres one idea of something acceptable that could have avoided all the 2016-167 controversy..
if there was a version of segwit proposed in 2016 that was a very very simple few features like:
new tx format called segwit, which had malleability fix for those that want it, and the locks and off ramp ability core wanted
the blocksize being 4mb for all to use. including legacy.(core acknowledged 4mb was network safe(no base block limit))
less sigops per transaction to avoid just a few bloated tx filling a block.

this would have actually been what core dev deem as technically possible (they all agree 4mb weight is of no harm) which means more tx per block not just due to full utility of the 4mb. but also the less sigops means less chance of single bloaty TX taking too much space.
a fee thats lower. (instead of the cludgy legacy x4 cludge that core actually proposed.. which caused legacy to get more expensive)

this would have got wide acceptance and would have still got segwit adoption.. all without having to throw large amount of unsupportive nodes off the network via mandated rejections of pools and nodes. without having to cludge up the code with 2 blocksize rules. without 2 cludgy fee rules.

..
there is absolutely no technical reason in 2022 to have the 1mb base limit still inplace hindering legacy transaction utility via the "weight" cludge
if core removed all the cludgy x4 math of weight and legacy fee. and just had a straight base 4mb blocksize along with less sigops per tx it would fix alot of things and give alot more utility without breaking anything.

there are alot more things besides all this that could be implemented to help improve bitcoin scaling too.
such as the issue with 'spam' transactions that spend every block, bloating up the block with transactions that in real world go no where but just paying the sender back just for shits and giggles.. every block. thus taking up space for no reason..

this can be solved easily by a fee mechanism that makes a transaction not pay for just its size. but also its age. EG if a transaction is spending a utxo thats only a few confirms deep. they pay higher than a utxo that is hundred+ confirms deep. EG if your spending every 10-20 minutes you could pay alot more then those that pay one or twice a day.. and alot more than that those that pay once a month.
this would make it extremely costly personally for the spammers
and with this idea.. it would mean not everyones competing fees would rise.. and it would be more personal fee based on personal needs of size and time since last spend.
unlike the current game of everyones fee's go up due to spammers because currently. everyone is "competing" due to a lack of a fee mechanism and so when spammers fill blocks everyone else has to compete and pay more to get noticed.. which is a bad way to work currently

by charging just the spammers more . it makes spammers not spam as much meaning more chance for everyone else to get their transaction seen without having to compete by fee rise races.


if there is no other candidate at an election.. there is no election. .. its just a one party government in power day after day..

anyway. lets go back to the other comments that are not the social drama queen defense fanclub


you forget installing 24 means it overwrote the 23.
you forget a thing called backporting. where devs do it alot to back port a later feature to also be included in an earlier version. so if you download 23 again.. you may now also have that new flaw in 23 again..
like i said who are you going to trust.  

its not like you can get something thats not bitcoin core but has all the review and stuff and has all the bells and whistles. (core does not like seeing competing fullnodes on the bitcoin network)

anyways.. lets use a real example. forget the hypothetical v24 bug.. lets use a real one..

take a bug found in 2018 that affected core versions 0.14-0.16.2  (vulnerable between march 2017-upto sept 2018)
https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.16.3#denial-of-service-vulnerability

a few seconds you say to go back or upgrade to a vulnerability free version.. hmm..

they created a fix via version 0.16.3 on 18th of september 2018.. (2 months after the last version with the bug(0.16.2)
https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history
and then backported the fix to the older versions as far as 0.14 and released updated version for 0.14 and 0.15 on the 28th of september (10 days after the 0.16 versions fix)

meaning lets say you had version 0.16.0 (february 2017) you were vulnerable. if you tried to get older versions like 0.15.x or 0.14.x you are still vulnerable.. and version 0.12 was not segwit compatible..
so you would have to of waited from february until september to have then been able to download a fresh updated version of 0.14.x-0.15.x-0.16.x that did not have the bug

unless you can tell me another brand/source of a full node that has all the ability to do all network operations and has a facility to make proposals for network feature upgrades............. and that is trusted enough to have not included the bug or found and fixed the bug before core did...

.. see my point. by having a lack of diverse choice meant people had to find out too late their software had a bug and then wait longer to get an update and even longer for a older version update without the bug. because even older versions of core had it too..

..
core have been known on many occasions to not disclose a vulnerability until they have made the fix even if they knew about the bug for many months.
this is because instead of wanting a diverse codebase of different nodes that are on the network they want to be the sole control.supplier of a full node. and so if they admitted earlier there was a bug but didnt have the available versions with a fix to download. it would cause chaos

its a multi layered process. mostly explained in my first post.. but ill emphasise some stuff
BTC does not leave the bitcoin network
its locked.

people on LN make payments in different formats/units of measure(tokens) that are not bitcoin formats/units.
 
what is done is when a LN payment is successful they then both contribute a signature for a bitcoin(segwit multisig) formatted transaction they call a 'commitment' which is a TRANSLATION of the successful msat payment.
which they choose not to broadcast.

and instead make new payments and reveal the private key(revoke key) of that last commitment so that if someone did try to broadcast to the bitcoin network yet was not the correct or most updated commitment.. .. IF it got confirmed. its still on a lock.. and the victim could IF they were aware, awake.online or using a watchtower service. could use the revoke key(private key to the spend) to spend before the lock time expires back to themself. thus not letting the scum thief take the funds not deserved to them (emphasis on all the IF's)


your node locally on your system keeps a bank statement style copy of each event it has processed. but you have to back it up.. its not part of any network log.

however this does not make LN private.
nodes on the LN route network are public and are given nicknames to identify them. so people can map out routes between channels/nodes..

when a channel is created or when a payment is successful they update the gossip protocol to tell the network there is something new about the channels.

there are many flaws of LN that allow people to reveal the 'gossip' of the channel updates and announcements and all the routes available to see when certain routes all send updates to the gossip protocol in quick succession. this can reveal when certain routes are used.
also by 'faking payments' along certain routes with differing amounts and cancelling it and repeating it (brute forcing) you can find out what liquidity each route has and how it changes over time. and piece together alot of info about where liquidity moves to and where it stops. so you can form a list of payments that have been made by others

alot of 'chain analysis' companies are already making algo's to do just that to form a map of nodes and channels and balance and watching where balance changes occur to then list which person paid which person and how much.

again your only answer. if you disapprove fork off (your saying subtly).. mhm how did i guess you were going to reply with that silly answer.. (but subtly avoiding the verbatim words of 'fork off' and instead trying to say 'stop running their software')

or the real answer is if people want to use the bitcoin network and have full node status. they need to be blindly following core. even if they dont like it..
because running other software and trying to promote bitcoin scaling.evolution without core ACK/consent/approval just ends up in REKT campaigns

of course people can blindly follow cores policy and just be a follower of the rules without trying to propose anything new by creating their own code that blindly follows core policy..

this does not mean they have to then shut up and stay quiet about it.. as well

EG
a vegan hates meat. they can try living in a world avoiding meat. but you are still going to hear them complain about meat. avoiding meat or just accepting and eating meat does not meant they cant complain about how manufactured and processed meat is.
(im a omnivore(mostly carnivore) but even i can see their point of view. shame you cant see other people point of view that doesnt align with your own)

i know you dont want people talking about it but they will. and THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE DO.
you hate me the most because im the one that doesnt cower down or run away and hide away from your insults and arguments of defending your "altnet is the bitcoin 2.0 solution" agenda

(oh again by "your" i dont mean YOUR birth baby.. i mean the baby you adopted and care for and defend.. (pre-empting that silly counter argument yet again))

now i just await the other few buddies of your defense fanclub league of fangirl.. oeleo, windfury, rath, loyce and nonce and a few others.. you know.. the usual suspects to come in to give you a hug(merit) and to try their own attempts to cause arguments help you defend your baby

---

to all other readers. sorry about this political social drama game done by certain people that want to defend central core devs rights to code what they like. .. but its these same few idiots that always come in defending the honour and reputation of the fan club leader dev they admire and are loyal to..

they are not loyal to the code security or the decentralised network, they are loyal to humans they deem as their leader and empowered devs of core control.

if they cared about BITCOIN and not dev X or Y. they would not be so angry about my comments

its not new. its the same few people time and time again. its boring but its on repeat. they dont care about the code or how it affects users ability to transact ON BITCOIN because they only care to offramp people to altnets.
their community is not the wide diverse community of milions of people that want to hold actual BTC. their community is the small niche of devs and fans that want altnet offramps. they just think their community is a majority. because its the small group they spend the most time talking to the most and only get to see because thy ignore most people that disagree with them.


they are by arguing and defending so heavily actually proving the point that there is a little boys club of a centralised group in control of what direction bitcoin protocol goes.. and in their mind the only direction they see/want is to offramp people to other networks

you say there is no code to govern.. and then you mention cores BIP process.. a process which in of itself has a code of governance..
they have their own rules and moderators and guidelines as to what can be proposed, how it should be proposed and their own hierarchy of who can ACK a proposal and who reviews proposals..
they have a multi layered approach to bip
first discuss lightly in their mailing list which is moderated by small group of known names. then
next discuss lightly in their IRC channel which is moderated by small group of known names. then
make a formal BIP and send it to the moderators of the github of bips
next discuss in more detail in IRC, mailing, or as comment on github to flesh out any issues or agenda competition.
and if your lucky enough to not get thrown out.
then you have to wrote the code and try to get it ACKed by the small group of maintainers.

but then.. you know this. and you also know the only option is to avoid core if the proposal is not ass-kissory to their agenda/goals.. and as you and your buddies point out many times. not contribute to core and instead fork off

and before you pretend people can fork the software and promote it on the bitcoin network. you and your buddies have already pointed out you love to do rekt campaigns on anyone that is opposing the core agenda. and you and your buddies in many topics have already show how those proposals not part of the core agenda get thrown off the network.

oh and if you look at the contributors of core.. its not millions of people. its not thousands, its not even hundreds.. the majority of core devs with a decent amount of commits that were ACK(acknowledged and added) is only a few dozen that have remained the elite group for 5-7 years.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
it shows that if you look at the top 100.. the amount of actual decent contributions fizzles down to small amounts in the top 40.

thank you for proving my point. have a nice day.

lets correct some things.

people LOCK UP some bitcoin to a UTXO, on the bitcoin network.. bitcoin never leaves the bitcoin network.. its impossible..  where that UTXO is not a common bitcoin address made by native bitcoin wallets/nodes.. . but a address created by a lightning node made specifically to hold up/lock in the coins. that the bitcoin network recently recognises as an acceptable address to have in bitcoin blocks
 
EG. bitcoins common address is a legacy address (starts with a 1).
EG. bitcoins common multisig address is a address (starts with a 3).
people cannot create a LN channel using the 1 or 3 style common bitcoin addresses.

they need to use the new format added in 2017 specifically added to bitcoin to be the LN/altnet gateway address formats that other networks can utilise(yep segwit was made specifically to have a format that allowed bitcoin to altnet locks to be formed sch as liquid,LN and other sidechain,subnets)

anyway. when using the formats compatible with altnets like LN where the LN node has funds on a key created by the LN node, (the private key(LN call the HSM secret) is not a standard bitcoin private key)
within the LN node another(second) transaction is made to the bitcoin network to then put a split of those funds into a channel LN address with further locks.
yep.
most LN wallets do not direct fund a channel.. people first need to "fund" their LN node address and then find a LN channel partner multisig address.. to lock up funds and let the channel establish its units of account pegs in the LN channel.. so in most cases 2 transactions are needed to actually get funds into a channels lock.

then inside LN channel(s) payment message go between LN users of channels are not measured in btc.. but instead measured in a completely different unit of account. called a msat.. (which is a peg of 1000msat=1sat)
these message/payments/invoices are not even bitcoin transaction common formats. they are different messages in a completely different order/format to a bitcoin transactions. and for emphasis, made using a unit of account that bitcoin does not understand.
EG 0.00003btc  is 3000sats.. which in LN is 3000000msat
bitcoin does not understand units of 0.00003000000 because that is 11 decimals of bitcoin, and bitcoin only understand 8 decimal limit.

as we all know from recent revelations of altnets that lockup bitcoin and then pretend to peg their new token/unit of measure to btc.. that peg can break.
there is no hard rule which all LN nodes are forced to follow(no consensus) that forces 1000msat to always be 1sat
be warned about this especially when recent news has been talking about the luna and usdt altnets of pegged tokens that broke their peg

IF the victim stays awake 24/7. stays online 24/7 or employees a service to watch for the cheating broadcast..
.. then. that attempt wont be blocked. but instead in the transaction out of the channel. the victim or its watchtower service can spend the funds before they are moved out of the LN network system of the locks and penalty mechanism of their formats

note the risk, and be warned. even the LN devs that created lightning have lost funds through theft. if they cant stop it the be very aware that LN is not as safe as advertised.

LN does have a small niche of utility. and by small i means small.. it is not a solution for everyone and the more users that use it the more channels and splitting up of funds people need to do to have possible routes to others. which in-of itself- becomes more risk of bottlenecks and problems making payments via needing to pass through more peoples channels along routes where each channel might have issues of liquidity or passing on funds.

LN has alot of other flaws. be risk aware of the flaws and dont just follow the positive hope.dream utopian adverts of LN. for your own safety be risk aware of your funds.

nope there are thousands of people in loads of topics that want bitcoin scaling but cant get it because bitcoin core devs have a different goal/agenda/plan

you only see me because i am the only one of a fw left that still can be bothered to argue with your small little buddie group of fangirls...  you cant easily shut me up when you try to break people down to sheep follow your altnet goals.

just accept it. i am not going to bow down to the "LN is the solution" agenda.
now go play with you little altnet. unless you and your buddies are willing to take some time out of your lives and actually do some proper research outside your pamphlets of centralised advertising of the "solution" you lot are obsessed with

if you think i am the only one.. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE THOUSANDS OF TOPICS BY LOTS OF PEOPLE that want to discuss BITCOIN network evolution..
and i mean bitcoin not your altnet offramp games you and your buddies are kiss assing with the devs that are stifling bitcoin to promote such altnets as solutions

..
and as for your cries when i mention the altnet being yours.
you may not be the birth mother of it. but you love and care and want to protect and defend it, meaning that you certainly adopted it as your own baby.

you dont want bitcoin scaling on the bitcoin network you want people to see bitcoin as being crippled because it then makes your adopted altnet useful..
but the thing is. your lil baby. has some flaws and is not something that will be world changing and welcomed to the wide world. it will stay as a niche.. people want real bitcoin adoption and actual bitcoin scaling.. not to be told that bitcoin cant grow so they should go adopt another network instead

bitcoin can grow if the current foster carers maintaining it, stop trying to cripple it and holding it back, but we all know you like the foster carers of bitcoin holding it back, as it helps to advertise your altnet baby

YAWN,.. and none of your insults include any code or details or stats to back up what your opinion concludes.

and by the way in the other topic. it was actually me that started off with the idea of putting in questionaires with yes and no answers for your buddies to answer. so dont go playing that game where you think you are doing something original and trying to suggest your had an inspiring idea to ask questions.. because you wont like the results

i know you want the core devs to develop what THEY want even if it goes against the wider userbases wishes
i know you want the core devs to be allowed to put in madatory activations so they get to force their whims on the network because you think the network belongs to them, because in your mind they are the CORE(center).. but all of that is proof of the small group centralisation of the code control.
where you think everyone else has to make their own alt-side-subnetworks instead and just work on the outside of cores code

i know you pretend your version of OPEN is where the core devs get to control the core and everyone else can have their own layers/branches. but thats not the original definition of BITCOINS open network.

but please do waste time crying.. or better yet just take a look at the far far far many more topics and far more people in those topics wanting to discuss BITCOIN scaling. and then compare that to the small number of you favoured altnet topics with the same dozen names popping up hilariously overselling over promising and under delivering a altnetwork while pretending the altnet you love as being the solution and bitcoin 2.0 everyone wants(they dont).

10%(~400btc) of your altnets entire liquidity capacity(~4000btc)  belongs to one node.
the 4000btc does not represent hundreds of thousands of users.
it just goes to show how small your altnet is when one node has 10% of the liquidity

oh and to get to the crux of your questions
you are wrong. because if there were different rules all over the place. there would be no majority. as there would be for example 10% running a rule that wants W 30% wanting X 25 wanting Y and 35% wanting Z. none of which would total the super majority needed to acivate a change in normal consensus rules

2016-17 proved that when segwit didnt get its activation in 2016-spring 2017.. where by core and its fansclub of altnet supporting solution agenda guys then moved to REKT other options and want them all to f**k off.
and then core had to then mandate and force segwit to activate in summer 2017 due to lack of user voluntary flagging for wanting it, the mandated activation was done in a way that even if users didnt have the nodes and miners to understand, interact and create segwit formats... they had to flag involuntarity to say they wanted it or be thrown off the network..
because even without running the code.. the mining pools were forced to just change not their entire codebase to understand segwit, but just change a version bit in their block to flag that they did not want to be kicked off the network for not supporting it. so they put the required version bit in their block to not get thrown off, and then without running segwit understanding code, they managed to stay on the network but ended up involuntarily getting segwit activated even without having any wallet software that could understand creating segwit addresses and signing transactions at the time
please at least try to review the code and activities that happened. dont play dumb with your "i didnt know, i wasnt interested in that stuff to care" excuses to ignore actual events.. if you want to debate something be prepared. or stay out of the debate if you want to play dumb and not know what actually happened.

doomad
i have no god complex. there are litteraly thousands of people that want bitcoin to evolve(not altnet solutions)
i am not alone.. i am not above others..  i am just the ones that you get triggered by because i have done my research and can show stats and code to back it all up. and you hate it

im informing people using stats and code.. YOU are crying and getting angry and throwing insults and telling people for fork off F$$k off and STFU.. notice the difference

anyway you are one of the typical 12 fans of altnets i was talking about..
where YOU think you have the authority(god complex) to tell people to fork off and go away and shut up when they dont tow the line and kiss your ass

no surprise you would turn up.. did blackhatcoiner contact you and ask you to back him up.. sounds about normal for every topic that you lot happen to try defending your "community"(offramp to altnet agenda group)
ill just continue to call you fangirls.. it stands for
"Form Another Network, Grab Idiots Reserved Locked Sats"
well it doesnt stand for that but it does explain the scheme you want to play for profit, which explains your motives of really trying to push people to stop using bitcoin in preference to your favoured altnet

anyways.. glad your admitting your influencer devs are holding bitcoin back.. one step forward by you admitting such
ill come to the silly things they are holding back that are not needing to be held back below.. ill mark it with a ** so you know



and if there was a bit of bad nefarious code in say version 24. where majority updated and activated some timebomb bug.. .. where are they going to get a version 25 from?
who would you trust to code version 25?
 where is the alternative dev group to diversify and decentralise the options of what node software to run to protect the network (and no im not talking about lite wallets)

anyways lets give the history lesson of the politics at play

the 2016-17 segwit saga...
they proposed a thing that would offer fee discounts...
people thought great legacy addresses finally getting fee's below a couple pennies..
.. nope. instead the game was to not give discounts. but to math cludge the code whereby new formats people had to move funds into paid normal rates and legacy was to be treated as 4x more expensive
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/fees-usd-per-transaction.png?timespan=all&h=600&w=1200
check out the flat line and then in the middle the 2017 event. see how the transaction prices then are not flat line cheap... ask yourself why

also they said they solved malleability. again legacy formats were not solved. again new format people had to move funds into would benefit. but its was not solving malleability it was getting people to have to migrate to malleability free formats.(theres a difference)

these new formats did not offer any transaction count increases to blocks.
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions-per-block.png?timespan=all&h=405&w=720
if you look the transaction count has been stagnant below the 2500 for the last 5 years

yet they did want to allow more blockspace to use for cludgy scripts(witness/signatures) of the new format.. which proves that more blockspace is indeed safe for the network...
BUT they wanted to still lock up and hinder and **not allow legacy transactions to use the extra space. and forced legacy to stay within the 1mb block size.**

.. so it released their agenda code in november 2016.. and the devs got all excited thinking by chiristmas 2016 it would activate because they thought everyone loved it.. ..... um... may 2017 came around not even 50% were liking it.. it wasnt really looking like it was going to activate.
so the politics moved in to change the code and add in some code(MANDATED ACTIVATION) that would force it to activate by ignoring any miner that was not flagging acceptance of it
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:bip-segwit-flagday#diff-97c3a52bc5fad452d82670a7fd291800bae20c7bc35bb82686c2c0a4ea7b5b98R1829
. this mandated date forced it in..
and so by summer 2017. it activated..

and yet 5 years later. not everyone is using segwit. 5 years later the transaction count has not seen any big increase even though they pretend to offer (but cludge up the offer) of upto 4x more blockspace. (hindered by limiting legacy utility to not be able to use that space.)

and so.. that shows the dictator politics over ruled the actual community that wanted actual changes but didnt get what was truly promised.

which is why after 5 years there are still hundreds/thousands of topic comments from different people asking about scaling bitcoin.

golds price is about $1700.. its value is about $900
but i bet in al your years you never looked at the $900 number or thought about gold even having a number below the price..

but then now knowing both figures.. what is gold worth to you.
are you able to start a gold mine to get gold nearer the $900 level. or is it not worth the investment effort. is it more worthy to you to buy now at the market price. or are you not really needing gold right now and think it might be worth it later to buy if it comes down closer to the $900 amount.

see even gold. thousands of years being traded and still people cant categorically say a whats worthy to them amount, as each person has a speculative different thought on it, but all thoughts are on amounts at $900+

...
as for your other comment.. not stepping upto the plate and creating a bitcoin 2 stablecoin:
an asset backed by another asset!?. is not as much of an asset as you think. its just a convertible note of a asset..
a real asset has value in of itself.

bitcoins asset value is derived from its mining cost.. the actual cost of acquiring it. into existence thats not due to any asset that done the actual work.

meaning. if a fresh token can be created for a penny. but then is pegged as priced at $$$ because of some other asset that actually had cost/work required to bring the actual asset to existence. then the fresh token is not valued as an asset..  its just a convertible token/note.
(ots why bank notes are not assets. but even in the goldbacked era of last century. bank notes were just convertible notes that cost penny to make but were not the asset. the gold backing it last century was the asset.)

these days a dime costs more then a dime to create a dime. so a dime is a more valued asset than a bank note.
...
take the difference between PoS and PoW
ethereeum when it detonates to PoS will change from being worth over $1k value to being worth only a few dollars value. and any price above value is speculative emotion.

bitcoins main value is the baseline mining costs that actually does cost many many thousands of dollars per coin right now.

golds base value is derived from the diesel and sluice machines that are paid for to mine it. its base value is over $900 right now.

if you are just wanting to create a new coin that has no cost in its creation but just magically gains $XXXX due to it somehow representing another asset.. then that new coin is not itself the asset.

i know you want to only look at the PRICE and think its volatility is not backed.. you are right. but you then talk about it as if the price is the value. which it isnt

EG
take real estate.
if you look at any region and look at the base sq metre prices of many homes.. and look at the base line that no one is selling below. thats the true value..
then when you look at the real estate prices of the home as as a whole you can then look at which homes are selling closest to that value or are exceedingly expensive at a premium.

house prices are not stable. and houses PRICES are not their VALUE. you have to find the value below the price to then see how good or bad the price is. to then work out if that house is worth it.

if you just want a stable coin that never changes. heck you dont even need to back it with a reserve(legally and morally you should. but its not needed). you just form an exchange where you only offer swaps at 1 for 1 and never deviate. never offer premiums or discounts. never have a orderbook of varying prices. never change the price. and boom you have created a stablecoin.

if you just want a coin thats backed by a real world rare mineral or something you can lock up in a vault as a reserve. thats possible too. but that rare mineral may adjust in price AND value meaning you then have to adjust the value/price of the coin. which then comes with risks of it detaching its backed 'value' if you are not careful.

however..
if you ignore the bitcoin PRICE. and stop thinking of the PRICE as the value. and instead realise the VALUE is a lower number. then you might start seeing bitcoins VALUE is not volatile and unstable. but just like other things in all markets. assets that have underlying value. also then ontop have the speculative discount/premium price

same as gold same as real estate

there are many many ways to aid bitcoin scaling on the bitcoin network. its not just about blocksize.. my point was that the altnet loyalists that think they are majority of the community and favour devs that only want to sniffle bitcoin evolution, or add things if it favours offramping to altnets .. is by them trying to portray that those that want bitcoin scaling only want massive blocksize growth ASAP as their counter argument to cry that bitcoin shouldnt evolve or those wanting scaling should leave the real bitcoin community and start their own altcoin.

there are many things that can evolve bitcoins network. the fee's, the sigops. the bloat per TX. also even without exceeding the now deemed safe 4mb(weight) they can remove lot of cludgy code and allow more transactions without exceeding that 4mb weight.

but its not technology that hinders the evolution, its the politics..

main point being for about 7 years now. there has been 1 defacto client everyone FOLLOWS. which has for the same number of years had one defacto maintainer that has had the github privileges to accept and finalise a Release Candidate which has then got a few key holding members that show signed messages that they have reviewed and accepted the code as clean which everyone FOLLOWS and trusts..
that same top hierarchy of people are the defacto main devs and dev helpers that have coded in the features THEY prefer to see

the data (blockdata) is decentralised over hundreds of thousands of nodes..
the rules, are bug checked and fixed and changed by only a small group of devs..  and they hate decentralised people outside their group entering their group and having an independent mindset

the post above in yellow highlight is a short summary. but doesnt explain all the math decisions that went into the summary.

but the main one is. if you change when the halving happens it changes the total coin supply..
each 190k blockheight halving points = ~19m btc
each 200k blockheight halving points = ~20m btc
each 210k blockheight halving points = ~21m btc
each 220k blockheight halving points = ~22m btc
you get the idea

by choosing the 50btc instead of the less uniform near 86 max coins a 32bit binary measure can halve by.
and by chooses every 210k blocks as the halving point are the 2 crucial numbers that created the ~21m btc total supply

well actually. scam artist CSW did sue the core devs and some of the main website owners that host bitcoin stuff like the white paper

it didnt affect the bitcoin protocol and the real wide community care about.. but it did affect and scare the small clubhouse that certain people are loyal too.