i wouldnt see bitmain dumping their price below their cost to monopolise. there is already other asics on the market and bitmain still sell at a premium due to reputation.

they may lower the price if people find a good asic competitor with fair pricing, thus reducing demand for bitmain, where bitmain might then bring it inline with competitors to stay desirable. . but again i dont see them wanting to dump below cost just to monopolise.

HTLC is not a specific term which means commitment

HTLC is basically "complex contract"
a LN millisat format payment has a HTLC ..

just because you see something that says HTLC does not mean it refers to the commitment

AGAIN:
a LNmillisat payment HTLC has units of measure in msat and also uses Erics payment hash for all users (ABCD)
a commitment HTLC(different) uses only the pubkeys of the channel partners and is measured in sats

a commitment is an inchannel management thing that occurs after the out of channel payment of routing packets

please try, for the multiple time of telling you. to learn the differences

last time im going to say this.
a HTLC is not "commitment". it refers to a whole range of transactions and formats that use HTLC
so stop trying to say 'it makes a commitment because it says HTLC.

oh and one last thing
bolts2 (the thing your addicted to) uses examples of old old protocol where its describing examples of 'hub' payments (where channel partner is the destination)
try to read the newer bolts. that explain more of the routing and payments of others in hop models using micropayments.

you cant comit to rounding up a millisat to a sat. until you know the millisat payment is complete..

otherwise if alice is trying to pay Eric.  if it was alice commiting to bob first. bob could then broadcast his win he never asked for.. and because its the latest commitment(in your scenario fantasy). bob cant be revoked. and so bob gets the win. eric doesnt get paid and alice is out of money.

sorry but thats not how it works. bob only gets paid after eric gets paid (ref the image several posts ago of 1-9 alice to eric)

tl:dr;
in short. mining costs and cost of acquisition has more of an impact than the 19m coins in circulation being hoarded.
but ultimately its the active day trader actually making the orders that impacts the price the most. because they are the ones setting the price.

---

the waffle explanation:
the bitcoin exchange market price is not affected by:
- the 19million coins in circulation (hoarded on keys).
- the 1-2mill coins deposited onto exchange hot/cold wallets.

bitcoins price is affected by active and just 'taken' marker orders on the market order book
EG independent cold store hoarders or those using an exchange as a hotwallet custodian, but not buying/selling. do not affect the price. because they are not buying/selling to set the price

as for those with market orders. its not a simple supply/demand.
this is because although in 2012 bitcoin had ~11mill coins in circulation and MTgox had many millions of coin alone
mtgox orderbooks were 10-1000 coin per order.

now in 2022. where there is 19mill coins in circulation(more general supply) market order lines are more like 0.001-1

what you find is that when there is less bunches of dollar. EG people are only offering $43 for 0.001 its not like the sellers are going to 'wall' the market with 10-1000 btc orders that never fill to move the price.
instead the sellers also depreciate how much they put in at any order line by also going down to 0.001 to match the demand

so its not a simple supply demand. its actually several layers of psychology changing whats deemed as supply.demand
..
that said only those making market orders affect the price. no one else

..
to add another aspect to this.
what people think is fair VALUE of a range thats ok to trade between. is more of a less refined and slight speculative range.
for instance in iceland/russia they value bitcoin at $30k because they can mine it for that. america values it at $40k. and japan values it at $70k

so japan think the bitcoin price is undervalued(super cheap) because they cant even mine it for less than $70k
so iceland think the bitcoin price is overvalued(premium) because they CAN even mine it for less

as hashrate and mining costs increase. this impacts the value range people are willing to trade between

in short. mining costs and cost of acquisition has more of an impact than the 19m coins in circulation being hoarded.
but ultimately its the active day trader actually making the orders that impacts the price the most. because they are the ones setting the price.

---

well technically they are no longer hoarders..
hoarders dont sell. thats what makes them hoarders

your trying to set a narrative that channel partners update a commitment and then send a "onion_routing_packet"
what you are not realising is what i said a few posts back. with the colourful image cycle of 1-9 alice to eric

you do know that users along a route cant create a commitment update until they have first received a LN payment. else how will they even know what they have to update the commitment by. (oh wait is LN now featuring psychic powers?)

also at the update_add_htlc, they dont update the commitment. they create a LN micropayment promise

this update_add_htlc is a private message between channel partners that update their own micropayment promise.
this micropayment promise is measured in msat and includes the destinations payment_hash as the 'output'

its not the channels commitment that uses the channel partners pubkeys. its a "micropayment" msat format using the payment_hash

once an payment succeeds then they update the commitment. because then and only then has B deserved been paid by A.
if there is a route fail. then the Ln micropayment promise just gets dropped

please take some time to read ALL the bolts. and try not to fear moving away from your adamant desire to only read bolt 2

..
actually.. seeing as you love bolt 2

https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/02-peer-protocol.md#adding-an-htlc-update_add_htlc

as you can see "update_add_htlc" is the msat message including the "onion_routing_packet"
update_add_htlc is not a trigger for create new commitment

bitcoins reward math. bitcoin transaction data is not 0.X.. its actually measured in sats.
to make the smallest unit subdivide even further requires breaking and bastardising many bitcoin rules.

if you look at the byte data(raw tx) of a tx of 1000sat,  its not 0.00001000  its actually 1000

EG if a legacy UTXO had 1000sat locked to the key. and a BStard transaction format was measured in msats
the then code would think that the 1000 unit of legacy is only 1sat (1000msat)

also the block reward. its not 6.25/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/2
its actually 625000000 /2
or more technically, in binary:
100101010000001011111001000000
were the end bit is dropped every 210,000 blocks

if a new BStard transaction format of msat protocol viewed:
100101010000001011111001000000
it would convert is to not still be 6.25btc but instead appear at GUI as 0.00625btc because the unit of measure has shifted by 3 decimals at GUI level

this means to cludge the code with more code to fix that. the current
100101010000001011111001000000  (6.25bt legacy)
which has 30 halvings left (30 bits to drop)
would need to be changed to
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
with 40 halvings. meaning it also breaks the 20140 year cut off. and changes it to be 2180 before supply depletes

and also more code ontop to recognise old legacy/segwit formats and convert a legacy/segwit utxo value from
100101010000001011111001000000
to
1001000110000100111001110010101000000000
and if someone wanted to go back to a legacy utxo. the reverse (4bit varient to 30bit varient)
in short, alot of cludgy code and alot of bug risks of translating bytes and crap

..
also with 1000x more sharable units. that can be split and shared around. this also changes the scarcity.
EG no one cares about only 190,000 tonnes of gold. if there is enough gold dust for everyone to have, its not scarce because everyone can have some gold

gotta love how you admit

but then backtrack to avoid discussing the payment, to then recite the channel management.
yep you went straight back to referencing bolt 2.

try to read a bit more of bolt 4
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#legacy-hop_data-payload-format
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/04-onion-routing.md#basic-multi-part-payments

what you need to learn a local inchannel HTLC for the in channel 'commitment uses the partners pubkey

Ln payments along routes use a pubkey of the destination(payment hash) and along the route or if part paying across multiple routes the same payment hash(destination pubkey) must be used

LN payments sent along the peers (separate from channel commitments) are measured in msat
..
still laughing how you rushed back to bolt2 and ignored the other bolts.
it seems you are stuck in the 2015 LN protocol and dont want to move forward to the 2018 "micropayment" update to the protocol when they added more bolts when they finally got LN to be fund peggable after segwit.

oh and fun fact LN first usecase was on testnets, thus not bitcoin network specific
oh fun fact, LN done atomic swaps from different blockchains before anyone even used Ln to purchase real products with bitcoin pegged funds

solo.ck is actualy a pool.

heres its own pool stats


here it explains within the POOL there are 2050 users with about 5-6 asics on average each
also worth noting that the average actual hashrate breaksdown as being only 2thash each, so some people are using some very crappy old asics on CK solo pool

oh and one last point. dont rely on blockchain.info's "network hashrate" or things like the btc.com pool hashrates. as those numbers are based on math of (time,difficulty,blocks found) rather than actual hashrate provided by the pool direct (such as my link shows)
ck pool is averaging at like 1200% luck for its actual hashrate right now.
its actually performing at 30peta.. but its luck of block finds is as if its performing at the math of 360peta (network guess hashrate)
...
now again to explain.
each asic owner(user) is not forming its own blockheader and adjusting its own reward share to itself. being proper solo

instead the CK pool is managing the block headers and setting the reward share. where it gives itself 2% and the uses the coinbase as an extra-extra-nonce which each user has a coinbase address, thus giving each user on the pool a variety of nonce and extra nonce to work through that are not the same hash permutations as another user
(all pools do this extra-extra-nonce varience)

all pools are collective. and change a coinbase per user/asic to give each asic varied work compared to other users.
and in all pools, a winning hash is always found by one asic

all thats different is instead of CK taking 100% and in a separate later transactions split the reward over all users. ck takes 2% for himself and then lets the winning hash user get the 98%

seems even now with your post being the 71st post of this topic
you and certain people want to pretend everything in LN it bitcoin format, where you want to brand tag an altnet as being bitcoin. by also saying LN is permissionless contracts that all can broadcast because 'its bitcoin'.... but then.. yep you slip up and make contradictions by admitting LN does handle millisats payments which are not blockchain compatible.

can you all stop the flip-flop(aka contradictions) and learn
1. difference between bitcoin locked value on the blockchain vs the 1:1000 pegged millsat LN payment
2. learn the unbroadcast commitment that use channel peers pubkey vs LN millisat payment using destinations payment_hash
3. LN millsat payments(aka invoices aka htlc aka sphinx onion encrypted payments) (whatever buzzword of the week you please) is not the same as a bitcoin broadcastable transaction
4. learn the bitcoin protocol does not have LN dns, peer handshaking, channel create code

if you can learn that there is no separate 'bitcoin LN network' and separate "litecoin LN network" and realise the LN network is its own network of its own protocols that allow channels with different pegged coin.

if you actually learn the differences of why LN is not bitcoin. then you can learn to actually PR campaign based on the differences, and give people some reason to want to use LN for the niche use cases where bitcoin doesnt fit their need.

trying to call it bitcoin lightning network as if the LN network is the bitcoin network. is just misleading

EG
you shouldnt say "dollar visa payment network" or "pound visa payment network". instead its just the visa network that can handle different currencies where visa is not "dollarL2", nor "dollar network"

if you continue to say "visa is dollar" people will laugh at you

you seem to not grasp the value window vs the price..

but then again. in this topic you also failed to grasp
what a pyramid is
what a commodity is
what an asset is

so its either best you go spend some time using google to research economics. or just take some time to re-read things over again, because you either missed some crucial things.. or just unwilling to learn.

if you want to know why miners increase their asics

countries like russia/iceland which have cheap electric and are at the bottom end of the window of $30k can afford to increase hashpower and still profit because the price is above the bottom.

this extra hashpower then means other miners get less reward for their work. meaning their costs increase.
meaning for instance japan/germany at 32cent/kwh have a increase of their cost per coin that would extend above $70k current window top.

also for instance europe/usa have a increase of their cost per coin due to the hash competition that would extend above their $41k cost meaning they are more inclined to buy at $43k if their costs surpassed the price.

some euro-americans already do prefer to buy at $43k now instead of mine at $41k because the effort in buying an asic, setup and having a noisy, warm home 24/7 is not worth it so they would rather pay a slight extra to get coin now rather than mine slowly
you may have noticed with the prices why there is some support stopping it dropping below $40k to head to bottom $30k. and why there is resistance of topping more then $45k to head back to $70k
this is because alot of american miners/traders are hopping in and out of the mine-to-sell vs buy-to-hold threshold of american cost of acquisition support in this price area

also while those in japan/germany($70k cost) are already more interested in buying at $43k rather then mining at $70k+
they are adding to the buy support to keep prices up

and with the bottomline value regions who can sell. as they increase their asics they are less willing to sell and instead hoard for the price to move up due to the value window adjustment

and so the buy support offsets any sell push. and the price moves up.

this then when the price moves up, makes those at the bottom value that can afford to mine no matter what market conditions are, can increase their asics again.. and so the value window adjusts up. and the price within the window moves up/down depending on the individual emotions of different regions

..
i do understand your anger.
its obvious that your jealous, upset, resentful that you didnt get rich from PoS ICO scams, and though that experience set your narrative for what you think crypto economics is like. you now turn to an actual working economic model of bitcoin, but seem to not like the fact that bitcoin has a proper economic structure, or not understand bitcoins economic structure.. and so want to flame war silly stories of how bitcoin must be pyramid, commodity, useless. purely out of spite that you cant get rich for low cents per day cost like you were promised on PoS ICO scam promotions

sorry but bitcoin is nothing like ICO's or PoS coins

what you actually find is that. the price is affected by hashrate and also blockhalving(that affect miners costs)

in 2013 when asics first came online the price went __/ shifting the 'value window' up to levels where people thought its worth buying bitcoin at higher prices before previous due to the new higher costs of mining are more expensive/inconvenient to mine.

when hashrate drops and cheaper to mine because less people share bigger parts of the reward the price goes down
in 2021 when china banned mining the hashrate went down from 165exa to 90exa. and the price ^---\

..
yes in some expensive hobby mining scenarios of little guys they choose to switch miners off after a price dip(react to price within window). but for the large mining farms. they continue to mine and they affect the window.

all of which fit into the relationship between the speculative price and the value window.
the price within the value window speculates up and down between the min and max value depending on the emotion of individuals. but the value window itself(currently $30k-$70k) is set by the mining cost/cost of acquisition

cheapest mining at 4cent/kwh is $30k bottom value. and most expensive(germany/japan) at 32cent/kwh is $70k

all emotional speculation of price volatility sit within this value window

as for the china ban of summer 2021
guess what happened afterwards in october 2021
https://hd.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzx/yjzx_add.jsp?SiteId=372

and in late november
https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/hdjl/yjzq/yjfk/cyjgtzzdml/202111/t20211130_1306450.html

so its not quite over and finished. they are atleast willing to listen to opinions to change the ban
then there is stuff like this said in december
http://js.news.cn/2021-12/21/c_1128184764.htm

in short, big farms. or residents that steal electric are "illegal" but residents that dont steal electric are not restricted although would be monitored to catch them if they steal electric

followed by

a blockchain is simply this,
its a bunch/batch/block of data wrapped up with a hash code derived from a complex math of the contents of said data.
each block also contains the hash of the previous block of data. thus chaining the blocks together.
if the data changes, the hash changes. making it easy to spot any edits, deletions or malicious data manipulation.

blockchains can be distributed to:
thousands of independent people (of no familial, employments or friendship relationship in real life)
closed groups or organisations within a relationship/employment

blockchain has many layers of risk/safety depending on how they are set.
EG if there is only one developer team that make the upgrade decisions, this can become a central point of failure
EG if the blockchain is only distributed on systems within a company, this can become a central point of failure
EG if the block collation and hash solution(mining) is done within sole entity, this can become a central point of failure

blockchains are more secure the further they can achieve not having central points of failures. but this does not mean blockchains are not blockchains simply because they are being used inside a company on individual workers desktops
.
blockchains are not required to only hold certain 'currency' data. blockchains can be used for many things.
the first example of blockchains was using a currency payment system as the data within the blockchain. this currency was bitcoin.
..
blockchains that have a true cost of creating the secure block hash(PoW) are more secure then blockchains that can make blockhashes for free(PoS). because if there is no cost at risk. anyone can try to game the system. if there is cost at risk then people are more willing to stay in the rules to get paid for efforts, rather then waste money to break the rules

and gold in the times of the egyptians, romans and even upto the american wild west, were done via pickaxes finding gold nuggets the size of potato's

but now its more gold dust requiring shifting tonnes of dirt per ounce using excavators

someone with a pickaxe today will not get the same reward as someone with a excavator and sluice machine today.

there is actually minimal work. its called the difficulty.
you have to processes trillions of hashes to find a block solution.

at todays cost
a raspberry pi will take decades to get lucky.
a mining farm of 500 asics will find 1 a day.

a pool(gold quarry) could combine loads of workers and combine efforts, but a single worker doesnt get the whole reward... its shared based on work done. (division of labour) so a small worker will only get a few sats for his few penny electric work

i know your stuck in the PoS narative that the only sole user that signs a block gets the reward, but bitcoins PoW is nothing like PoS solo signing

so much wrong again..
sorry but someone with 55petahash and someone with 110terra hash is not going to get the same bitcoin reward amount.

you are not going to earn 6.25bitcoin using a raspberry pi for 3 cent a month.
you are going to get a couple sats.
and you will calculate the cost:reward as such. where by someone with 55peta is going to get more based on his work

EG with gold
if you had 2 people in the same quarry digging for gold. the guy with the expensive excavator and sluice machine will earn more gold, than a guy with a pickaxe and a sifting dish.


..
im starting to think you entered this crypto sector via PoS crapcoins and that set your narrative of crypto when you didnt get your promised "get rich quick" . and now angered and jealous you are now trying to say crapcoin PoW low hashrate but bubble inflated value.. and PoS zero cost/loss reward income narrative, applies to bitcoin too.

sorry but crapcoins have a whole different valuation,. utility, cost economic model
(oh look, your first forum post, is you doing a scammy ICO for a PoS crapcoin.. not surprised)

you still do not realise that 2 vessels of data are signed independently of each other.
(actually its 3 but i wont complicate things)
first a LN payment(data not in blockchain accepting format, and contain millisat units) and separetly commitments (sat units in blockchain accepting format)

you are using bolt 2 which is one part of things.. missing the point of micropayments which is another part

the millisat payment comes first. and is then rounded up/down into sat commitment as a second part
i know most of you groupies only want to talk about the inchannel stuff of blockchain formated commitments. but at least learn about the other stuff too

where there is a value exchange between A<>B, commitments are formed after the 'success' or 'timeout'

but you have to realise that when trying to pay E(eric), via D(diana), via C(carol) a different part of things is used. where by a different message format measured in millisats is used and encoded in 'onion' layers of sphinx encryption.

but it is funny how you are using bolt2 (Peer Protocol for Channel Management).
and avoiding yet again:
bolt4: (Onion Routing Protocol)
bolt11 (Invoice Protocol for Lightning Payments)

i get it you dont want to learn LN, or you dont want to admit there is more to LN as a independent network.
i get it you want to pretend everything in LN is dependent on bitcoin format transactions..

but its not.

the HTLC in a LN payment (which also has amount measured in msat) which is wrapped in onion 'sphinx' encryption. sent to peers along a route, is different to the timeout/success commitments that happen just within a channel after they need to update due to the success/time out of the LN payment(msat payment wrapped in sphinx encryption)

the bolts tries to explain that
payment_hash (same for all parties involved in a route).. and its payment _secret (same for all parties of a route) is for the msat payment.

separetly the localpubkey remotepubkey(just between channel peers) and revoke keys(just between channel peers) are buzzwords for the channel commitment

just because both commitments and route payments both say "htlc" does not mean the specific HTLC happening during a route is the same data as a HTLC happening within a channel

HTLC is basically saying is a contract. an agreement but with complex conditions.
it does not mean that the contract is of only one format that is acceptable to blockchains.

a htlc can be a commitment(blockchain format) or a LN payment (msat denominated format)..


if you truly think that if A wants to pay E. only commitments are done. and commitments are signed before B pays C. and c pays D and D pays E..
then B can run away with A's funds before E has been paid.
sorry thats not how it works

payments are done as a separate HTLC(in msat) and once E has received the payment_hash from D, who got it from C, who got it from B who got it from A(who got it from E). then E knows to send payment_secret to D, who passes to C, who passes to B who passes to A. and then A and B make the commitment where B is deserved the value

inside the spinx encoded onion payments that go through a,b,c,d,e they all get the exact same payment_hash to use. and they all use the same payment_secret to validate the payment is success. which then triggers the commitment part to update which doesnt use the routed payment has/secret but instead the channel peers own pubkey and revoke key


..
funny thing is. although i have many reasons to not like LN, it seems i have done more research or atleast able to describe LN in its many functions.. yet the LN groupies seem to be ignorant to reveal features, or just lacking the research to understand the features, or even just avoiding explaining the features to set some narrative.

..
if LN groupies actually bothered to learn all the LN features. and understand them, and see the differences of them. they could actually use it to create some good PR campaign of why LN is a niche service for certain utility.. instead of being ignorant/avoiding features, just to prime some weird narrative that LN is fixed to or is bitcoin

thats why you have to look closely at the payouts..
if cloudmining payouts stop being 1 taint from a block reward and instead have taint of the coldwallets you deposited your rental/hire payment.. then its gone ponzi. and thats the time you stop renting, cut your losses.

most of the cloud mining that do scam. are usually ones where the website and stratums are proxy protected. and the hosting is not revealing the physical office/location of business.(cant sue a scammer if you cant locate him)

im sure someone like a legit business owner thats in the public eye, someone that cant hide. will probably operated a business thats regulated and accountable.

but too early to tell as its not even at the prototype stage.

this is where again value and price need to be realised as different measures.

golds bottom line value is ~$900. no one wants to sell below this because the cost of mining gold is higher then this. and years of buying gold has raised its current owners acquisition costs to also be over $900

same with bitcoin its bottomline support value is about $30k.

the premium (point no one wants to buy above) is gold:$2.5k and bitcoin $70k

the PRICE. of gold sits somewhere in the middle of $0.9k-$2.5k.. and yea the volatility of the ups and downs within this window where the price bounces up and down is the market sway of emotion.
but thats not to say gold has no underlying value either economic value or utility value

the PRICE. of bitcoin sits somewhere in the middle of $30k-$70k.. and yea the volatility of the ups and downs within this window where the PRICE bounces up and down is the market sway of emotion.
but thats not to say bitcoin has no underlying value either economic value or utility value

bitcoin has more utility than many crapcoins(utility) and also because its PoW instead of PoS, bitcoin has economic value.

i would agree your assertions of pure emotional sway of markets and things going to zero apply more to crap-PoS coins. but bitcoin is different to those. for many many reasons

what you need to realise is.. the store of VALUE (value) is not the current $43k. its store of VALUE (value) is $30k+
where at the moment the extra $13k is yes speculative emotional premium, speculating the store of VALUE(value) will eventually reach more then their early purchase of $43k

stop imagining the PRICE as an equal VALUE line. and realise there are differences.

EG milk, each week it can go up and down in price at a retail store.. in the UK we have it going from £1-£1.50($1.37-$2.06)
what is deemed as value to an end users is when its near to the £1($1.37). and when its premium its nearer the £1.50($2.06)
this by itself, this swing in current retail prices regularly is not enough to call milk a pyramid, your thinking: because a farmer sold it for £0.40 to a pasteurising factory, who sold it for £0.47 to a distribution centre/wholesaler who sold it for £0.57 to a retailer. who sold it to a customer for £1-£1.50

a pyramid is where when things are sold at the bottom the money moves up the levels.
EG customer pays retailer who then pays wholesaler who then pays pasteuriser who then pays farmer(in backward reward)
a pyramid is also from top down. 1 recruit 3 who recruits 9 who recruits 27
there is no 1 3 9 27 split of different people who benefit from a sale.


with anything sold in retail. its just money between buyer to seller.
and also, art is an asset..
art is not a commodity. nor a pyramid

seems. you are not yet willing to consider things.
you want to call bitcoin a pyramid (backward paying reward program scam)
you want to call bitcoin a ponzi (share investment treasury scam)
you want to call bitcoin a commodity (raw material used to make products)
you want to call bitcoin flaky art (asset)

can you atleast make your mind up on one?

again your trying to show the A<>B millisat payment and commitment by blending them into one bx of ascii art

your ascii art of the bolts 2. is that -(1)->   -(2)-> -(3)-> is the LN millisat promise part simplified.
YOUR (1)(2)(3) is the same three 1,2,9 (using the diagram in my last post)millisat payment promise updates between alice and bob..
the commitment in your ascii art (4) doesnt happen until after your ascii art (3) has happened (my diagram9)

as for your other 2 boxes of text. that again is the commitment bits that happen secondary.
again your confusing the a<>b stuff with the payment of a-b-c-d-e

remember eric gives alice the payment_hash for the micropayment (millisat promise) with bob (not commitment)
bob uses the payment_hash to carol for his micropayment (millisat promise) with carol (not commitment)
carol uses the payment_hash to diana for her micropayment (millisat promise) with diana (not commitment)
diana uses the payment_hash to eric for her micropayment (millisat promise) with eric (not commitment)
eric then gives diana the payment_secret which she passes to carol who passes to bob who passes to alice

payment_hash=erics pubkey (H)
payment_secret=erics privkey (R)

they all then update as success and then make the commitment
whereby the commitments outputs = local_htlcpubkey remote_htlcpubkey

dont confuse the micropayment millisat promise of erics cycle of H and R through ABCDE, with the commitment of just AB.

because if you really think there is no ABCDE millisat micropayment temporary promise using H and R. and you think H and R are only used by commitments and only commitments exist. then erics H is going to be in AB's commitment which if AB broadcast such a commitment. then eric can spend the utxo put into his H using his R

you need to realise the different parts and how an LN payment is different to a commitment.

the LN millisat payments use erics H and R.. in your steps (123 of your ascii art first box)(129 my diagram)
the commitments(45) uses AB keys AFTER (123your first ascii box)(129 my diagram)

as you can see using my diagram in my last post
at the LN PAYMENT(emphasis) alice gets erics H at 1. and needs to get erics(R) to complete at 9
if alice was to put erics H into a commitment and then broadcast it.. eric could use his R to redeem money to him meaning alice and bob get nothing.

thats why LN payments are separate and another reason why they dont get broadcast. aswell as being in a format not understandable to bitcoin network. to prevent eric from scamming alice and bob.

at (your ascii art step 4) the actual commitment creation stage. yes alice make a commitment using their own AB agreed keys, not erics key used in the LN payment millisat promise.

---

as for you saying in your post that you explained it already using your node logs

please note this is not the commitment. but the LN payment.
you can tell because it says to add "amount=97653097msat" and we all know a "bitcoin commitment" does not handle msats. so whats being signed. is not a bitcoin commitment but a msat based LN payment

the confusion is your misunderstandings of commitments vs payment..
maybe because you have soo many buzzwords
payments via "Hashed Time Locked Contracts" vs commitments
payments via "Msat invoices" vs commitments
payments vis "micropayment channel contracts" vs commitments

your second and third code box of 'commitments' you numbered 1&2 are actually your ascii art(first box) 4
where they are only committed if the LN payment fails(HTLC-timeout) or succeeds(HTLC-success)

.. oh and um one last thing
when talking about payments in LN.. dont confuse the matter by using bolt2 (channel management) and instead use reference from bolt11 (invoice payment)

well jack so far is just at the preliminary investigation stage. he has yet to even build 1 prototype asic, let alone scale production, let alone have sufficient stock to offer using different sale models(parts, complete product, remote renting)
so too early to tell for sure which route he will concentrate on.

the easiest ways to know if a cloud mining is genuine:
1. the income you get is just 1 taint away from a blockreward
2. the asic 'worker'/hashpower and pool total hash power is accountable and allotted to renters
3. physical proof of asic ownership (warehouse/farm walkthrough video)

the easiest ways to know if a cloud mining is ponzi:
1. the income you get is just some coldstore coin from rent purchase transactions
2. there are more renters at xTHash each, than the pools hashrate combined
3. declines to physically prove asic ownership (never does a warehouse/farm walkthrough video)

bitcoin and golds value is not just 'its a currency or jewellery'. its value is also from its cost of acquisition
if you could mine gold or pick up rocks for just $1 in your back yard. and anyone could do the same. no one would pay $2000 a ounce for it. the most they would pay is $2 premuim to avoid the sweat, dirt of getting their hands messy.

because gold costs over $900 to mine. thats why people pay atleast $900. and no one is foolish to sell gold for less than $900.
the reason why gold cant escape above a $2.5k ATH at the moment and bitcoin cant escape above a $69k ATH at the moment is because everyone on the planet can mine for less than a certain premium and so would stop buying at a certain peak because its cheaper/more convenient to mine.
gold has a value window based on acquisition cost of $900-$2.5k, bitcoin has a value window of $30k-$70k

yes if bitcoin becomes useless as a currency then the desire to maintain bitcoin will  drop. miners will want to maintain(mine) something else. and slowly with only a few miners left getting high% of the reward for less effort. the costs come down and thus the value comes down. which is why having utility is important. but its the secondary to its underlying value(cost of acquisition). there is a relationship between utility (desire) and mining(supply). but the value(price) is more linked to the acquisition value range.


again you say "commodity"
a commodity is a raw material used to create other products
oil=fuel/plastic, beef=burgers/steak, wheat=bread/cereal

gold is yes a commodity but its also an asset. gold sits on 2 markets.
dont confuse golds mining/currency reserve/investment (asset class) with its jewellery/electronics(commodity class)
bitcoin fits similarly to golds asset definition.. but bitcoin no way fits into golds commodity definition

as for saying its a pyramid scheme(facepalm) well your listening to the wrong 2 people. whichever one calls it a pyramid scheme. stop listening. and instead learn:
no one gets recurring income from the sell of bitcoin.
there is no bunch of investors all depositing into a central pot that paying out monthly interest/dividends
there is no 'team' of downstream or upstream lineage of investors getting paid by a downstream seller
its not like when someone sells coin. he then has to pay 10% to his supervisor, and 8% to their supervisor

who ever owns the coin and sells the coin keeps the funds for the sell. there is no pyramid 'sharing' of revenue structure in bitcoin.

early adopters/hoarders (not selling) have no impact on the price because they are not the ones making offers.
bitcoins price is only from those selling at the price they want to sell at and only they get the income of that sale