when saying one of his idea's solves the issues of the delivery, setup, heat, dust, noise making it inconvenient for peoples homes.. im guessing he is going to offer a 'cloud mining' service... along with patent-less open source blueprints/designs/coding if people want to take his design of an asic and make their own asic.

years ago many ASIC manufacturers started very open. not just cloud hashing, but also selling asics, and also selling the chips stand alone so others can make their own asics. but lately due to headache and cost of building their own. most ended up just buying asics(farms) or cloud hashing(hobbyists)

nah.
overdrafts were seen as 'extra credit/debt' without the creditcard application form requirement. what you find is by limiting access to overdraft, causes those on low incomes to then apply for credit cards in tough times, to pay off unavoidable bills.

and then having a credit card with higher limits people end up getting into more debt(profit for bank) because people then tend to max out their limit thinking its 'free cash' to not worry about for months.

its like all economics.
if someones income is only say $1500. but they have payment demands/bills/lifestyle costs of $1700. they usually use a overdraft to pay the $200 excess, and try to recoup the next month.. by only spending 1300 on lifestyle and put $200 to zero the overdraft(not always possible)

but if banks only limit access to the $1500 income, people then go elsewhere to get hold of $200 to pay off unavoidable bills. and if the 'elsewhere' is offering another $1500 'on credit' people usually take the $1500 extra credit and buy silly things like luxuries thinking they can pay back $130 a month for the next year.. but never do because they are still only getting $1500 of income and still having $1700 bills. so each month the debt increases.

having a $200 overdraft 'credit' taken away and then offered a $1500 credit card. tempts people to 'spend' $1500 credit. instead of staying under the $200 'credit'(overdraft) allowance from previous years

well unless they are going to send an agent to the apartment to do a daily check to make sure someone lives there. its not really a rule/law. its just a guide/hope it will add vibrancy.

take other examples of state/government offering incentives for things
just look at all the 'shell companies' that governments offer 0% tax to, if businesses register in these tax free zones. the business does not end up actually living/working/operating in these area's they just have a po box or registered address with mail forwarding to the actual HQ elsewhere.. its standard practice

what you will start to see  is any altcoin which has lasted a test of time and has some utility, will start to see ASIC's made fro them.
as for the other coins (crapcoins) they will die out as people shift their existing efficient gpu to the more long lasting/utility coins.


yes AMD can make alot more money by appeasing the miners by offering mining efficient asics. but that requires scaling up production to meet the demands of both gaming and mining industries. they seem to be preferring not to scale up to meet both industry neds and instead want to concentrate on purely appeasing the gaming industry demand by removing things that the mining industry want it for.

the main reason i could see them doing this. is because when mining, many 'overclock' or have GPU running 24/7 at high processing rates, which can kill a GPU quick. which can affect AMD's warranty replacement rate, causing AMD more costs.

again to emphasise. a CK solo pool is not actually solo.. its a pool. and in all pools the solved hash is always solved by 1 asic within the pool. no matter how the pool is described.

the only difference of CK pool is that the asic in question gets 98% rather then sharing the reward between all asics


in lottery analogy.
ck pool and antpool are both names of lottery syndicates (groups of people buying lotto tickets where only one can win)
if antpool has a winning ticket, he pays out 99% to all ticket buyers, the buyer of the winning ticket doesnt get 99% but a shared small %. and the others in the syndicates get the same small% even if their ticket was not a win.
if ck pool wins, he pays out 98% to just the buyer of the winning ticket everyone else doesnt get a shared small %

but in both cases. the lotto system runs by only 1 lotto ticket number wins per game.

the CK 'solo^TM is not true solo where an asic works outside of a pool and gets to form its own block headers of only its control and reward,

i know you want to keep being adamant about the funding commitment and using it as a settlement in times of non-amicable LN session..
but thats just your ignorance not wanting to enter the discussion of LN PAYMENTS

you know. the 'hop routing of millisats'

A<>B<>C<>D<>E
although you(A) have a funding or settlement commitment for you vs partner B.. there is no such final 'commitment' contract of you vs E(recipient of payment)

during the payment.. ill EMPHASISE PAYMENT. it requires B,C,D,E to be online to pay E.
E is not 'trustlessly' guaranteed to be paid when A<>B make a promise at the start of the pass the parcel game. or when E starts by giving a htlc public key to A at the start of the pass the parcel game
alot of things can go wrong during an LN PAYMENT

..
however on bitcoin. (the real bitcoin network not to be confused with altnets pretending to be), on bitcoin i can pay E direct and there is no need of any 'watchtower'/'punishment' need to be online..  or being online just to receive. or online just to initiate, or a way to take back funds after confirmation. or any of the other flaws.

i know you only want to direct back to talking about the A<>B funding/punishment as a 'backup' protection. but your forgetting that LN PAYMENTS are usually outside of the A<>B 'game theory' because its actually a PAYMENT trying to succeed between A and E, again the A and E PAYMENT can fail for many reasons.
EG delaying signing millisat promises of B<>C   C<>D   D<>E
EG not passing the HTLC secret
EG not being online
EG not having liquidity

call LN payments by any buzzword you like
(onion-routed-payments)(HTLC invoices)(microchannel payments)(millisat promises)(hop payment)
but atleast learn the difference between the LN payment promise of say A to E vs the 'commitment of A<>B

just stop trying to talk about the A<>B funding commitment just to avoid the game theory of LN payments to E.

oh and by the way.
B does not update the A<>B 'commitment'. until after E promise is signed,  which then pases to D, which then passes to C, which then passes to B

in short:
(alice paying eric)

B doesnt get to update a commitment until point 9, not point 2

B cannot spend(settle) a 'payment' until point 9 has completed
(A wont sign a commitment until it receives R(private key))

lots of things can go wrong between 1-9
there is alot of permissions required and trust and amicable 'hopes' for payment success needed during 1-9

..
by the way, A,>B do not create a 'commitment' at 2 using H(erics public key) in a commitment. because A<>B know eric has the privatekey(R) and if A or B broadcast a commitment with H, eric can jump in and send funds to where he likes using R.
and at point 6 and 7 diana and carol also have the private key(R).. so they can also 'spend' the A<>B.. if A<>B were to 'commit' using H as a output

LN payments are IOU promises measured in millisats that contain the H, but not in the format of a bitcoin transaction. it wont succeed in being accepted by the bitcoin network for many reasons of not being a bitcoin transaction, as its a different format specific to LN and only understood within LN

in short 1-8 are not bitcoin transactions. Bob cant just receive R at 8 and broadcast without doing 9. because 1-8 are millisat measured promises, and only becomes a 'commitment(requiring permission via 2 signatures) after point 9.


.. isnt it just funny that out of the multiple pages i have been the only one using references to back up my 'opinion'.. yet others opinion is backed up foolishly with 'i think its how it works so you are wrong because its not what i think'(lacking evidence, references)

it was NY state
https://govt.westlaw.com/nycrr/Document/I85908c6b253711e598dbff5462aa3db3?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

not sure why your talking about "city" to try to argue that it never happened

if you want to get technical about the technical. its not actually 50 btc (unit of 50) its not 50*coin. where coin =1btc
its actually where coin=100,000,000

coin is measured in sats. not in whole bitcoin.
if you took the 'values' from block data and transaction data in raw form and convert them from byte to decimal. the numbers are in sat units. not whole bitcoin numbers.

so technically there is no btc anywhere in block or transaction data. only sats..
yep no btc is found on the blockchain. just sat units

where by math then bunches them up into 'coin' of 100,000,000 units to be called a btc at GUI level (software user interface). not at raw data level of the blockchain

so there is infact going to be UNDER
2,099,999,997,690,000 sats

..
but if you want to talk about the GUI representation. btc in whole units would display as
20,999,999.97 which rounds to 21mill

funny part is bitcoin. the actual and only network called bitcoin(not to be confused with altnets)... bitcoin does not require the recipient to be online. nor does it need to pay middlemen to route and have liquidity and be online.

i can send coin to any address whether they are online or not and they will have it confirmed to them even if they dont look or check or ask for it.

i can wire transfer money to others bank account without them needing to be at their bank to accept it.
i can mail bank notes, gold, or other rare metals to people without them having to ask for it.

LN requires a co-signed agreement. and even after the agreement they need to be online to make sure the other party doesnt cheat.

same as what happened to golds old 19th century medium of exchange status, replaced by bank notes.. and now bank notes being swapped for brass, nickel and copper coins.
.. no one uses gold as a medium of exchange anymore

those wanting LN dont want bitcoin to be a medium of exchange (daily activity currency between the common people) they want it as a 'reserve' currency for the settlement by custodians, payment services, 'hub managers'(AKA banks)

what needs to happen is BITCOIN needs to scale to keep people using the bitcoin network and maintain it regularly/daily. not be shunned away to another network being told to prune their wallet software and not maintain the blockchain, and not use bitcoin network regularly.

1. "LN allows private agreements".. has the word agreements in it. .. its not trustless. it requires both parties to be amicable. even the punishment cant be auto-trusted to work in un-amicable scenarios, it has flaws.
seems you have not even looked at the issues cypherpunks had with their p2p money before blockchians existed.

3. you are yet again confusing the locked bitcoin vs the LN payments. please try to learn the difference, it will help you with your day to day use of LN. im not stating you personally shouldnt use LN im saying you should learn what LN actually does and how it actually works to make your life better. heck it might even give you some insight on a better PR campaign

4. you just stated you dont want to go back to using bitcoin because of the fees and confirmation time
ill quote you AGAIN
yes bank notes are faster and cheaper to move around compared to gold.. still doesnt make a bank note goldL2

as you can see. blackhatcoiner is showing the advert campaign.
1. saying LN is intelligent technology.. when its simply 'joint-bank account' economics of private agreements between partners.
 - cypherpunks had this 'tech' before 2008 and it didnt work for them. they found blockchains as the solution to 'channels'
2. it doesnt run ontop of bitcoin. much like a printer does not run on the internet. even if 2 middle PC software link locally
 - as bitcoin code has no LN peer connection stuff. and LN can still peer connect without bitcoin.
3. without permission? its 2-of-2 co-signing agreements needing the other person to give permission and be online to allow payments.
 - dont confuse LN 'instant payments' requiring partner amicable permission. vs bitcoin settlements exiting LN
4.seems you now want to show how you hate bitcoin. and dont want to return to using bitcoins 10min confirms and fee's, because you only want to use pico-measured unit fees and 'instant'(when online and amicable and liquid)

5. did bank notes protect the significance of gold as a medium of exchange? or did it replace it as a medium of exchange once bank note lovers decided not to take back their gold because of the slowness and expense of gold transfers.

gotta laugh though.
blackhatcoiner doesnt want bitcoin to scale itself to make less transaction bottlenecks and also make transactions cheaper on bitcoin. but then says LN is the bitcoin scaling solution.. then cries how he doesnt want to go back to bitcoin because of its implied restrictions

blackhatcoiner is stuck in a loop.. doesnt want bitcoin to change, wants another network to avoid bitcoin problems because bitcoin hasnt changed.

last funny part, admitting he doesnt want to return to the bitcoin network to exit LN, means.. yep he will exit LN by atomic swapping to a shitcoin with cheap fee's and less confirmation bottlenecks.

and on a serious note.
if he thinks that getting people off a train, to use a bus, is how he sees it as a solution to scaling trains. he is missing logic by a few million miles. if no one uses a train daily, people stop maintaining trains, and stop buying train tickets

you do remember the NY ban and then the bit licence era right..
yep it already happened and so no drama now.

generally right now those shouting "its worth $100k" are the ones that bought at $50k and they want 2x in the future. so speculate it as valued at that $100k now, because they are in a rush to get their profit.

however the actual value window right now is between $30k-$70k
everyone on the planet even home hobby miners could mine for less than $70k/coin right now so there is not much need/pressure to buy for more then this.

as things progress in mining costs and such, this window will rise, eventually $100k will fit inside the value window. but not right now.

so those speculating that bitcoin IS worth $100k are just speaking too soon, too greedily and too eagerly

as mentioned with every other country, including america,

a country cannot offer licences, permits regulation of a product unless it first prohibits its use. then it gains legal control to punish those who use it. then then allows them to offer special provisions of using it (licences/regulations) for those that do want to use it.


this means a country banning a crypto is also the first step to allowing crypto(in a regulated system)

whilst holding coin.. never look at ATH. they never last long.
instead only look at the supported lows.
look at the increments of the new periodic lows as a guide to valuing your coin.

anything above these lows is "bonus"

EG i bought coin at $6 in 2012.. yet:
i dont view it now as "being worth upto $69k recently"
i do view it now as "valued at atleast $29k recently"

shift your mindset to the lows and you will start to appreciate VALUE. and start to measure investments based on IF the PRICE is near VALUE or at a premium(ATH)

i gotta laugh here.

im agreeing with blackhatcoiner and disagreeing with windfury.
(expect social drama from them later)

bitcoin is not a ponzi.
bitcoin does not earn people dividends or interest for holding on..
bitcoins profit is from letting go of the asset.

no one earns anything until they sell it. and when they sell it only that seller gets the profit of his sale.
and once sold, the seller gets nothing after the sale. and got nothing before the sale. he just gets the value of the sale

there is no treasury pot of cash that is saved up, which takes buyers money in and spreads it out to existing investors to keep them in.

its simply trade. if i have 1 banana. i make no money unless i sell my banana. and selling my banana i get the full amount of the sale. no one else. and then i no longer have a banana. there is no 'continual income' for holding. there is no income from other investors for holding. you just buy and sell. thats it

its that simple

bitcoin is a tradable asset, not a ponzi investment.

he says right before doing the exact thing he said he never done

also the over embellishing what pruned nodes can do, by ignoring what they cant do, is advertising pruned as something people should try.
EG if you didnt want people to prune. you would be advertising what pruned nodes cant do. and not exaggerate what they can do

seems they only want 100 people to come to NWA. (invest $1m in allotments of $10k)

the 'new hampshire project' years ago seemed more interesting as a campaign, i think more then 100 people took up the NHP offer

anyone interested?
well set yourself up as self employed(no min income required). rent a NWA apartment for $500/m ($6k/y) and keep $4k profit.
you dont have to physically sleep in the apartment. just have a registered address

i dont see this as an attempt to make NWA a 'bitcoin region' like el salvador or new hampshire. its more of just a signal that towns, cities and state officials are legitimising crypto (accepting it as a real asset)

it has to start somewhere, but the authority 'accepting bitcoin as a real asset' snowball has already started rolling. may it continue

the issue is for every time i rebutt their altnet advertising, they just enter another debate of "franky1 wrong coz troll" (actually its them becoming the troll)

my remarks explain the concept of how things work on LN using references and things that can be backed up by code and real life stuff.. their remarks dont explain how it works(in their opinion). and just social drama queen how im wrong, without actually providing code, data.

i fully understand im not making their advert campaigns easy for them.
i understand they dont like it.

but i can back up what i say with code, bips and quotes and block data
all they can do is insult and basically say "wrong because troll"(boring and non explanatory rebuttal of no substance)

i have nothing against them deciding they want to use an altnet. i have nothing against them playing around with millisats.
my only issue is them trying to convince others that LN:
is bitcoin
  in the same manner of saying a printer is the internet, just because a printer connects to a PC locally and a pc connects to the internet.(facepalm)

it replaces bitcoin as peoples daily use crypto.
  by pretending millisats are bitcoin, by saying LN peers are bitcoin peers. that the handshaking and code is the same network, and that people then should not use the actual bitcoin. but instead treat msats as bitcoin instead.
(treat bank-promissory-notes as gold(facepalm))

yea it sounds silly to call a printer the internet or call a printer a 'internetL2', or even call the internet a 'printerL2'.
yea its silly to call bank notes a goldL2. or call gold a "bank noteL2"..
but thats their PR campaign. and its just sad how foolish they are about it, to try to believe it soo viciously and adamantly.

they have on multiple occasions shown how they want to call bitcoin the flaw and LN the utopia(facepalm)

i have actually on multiple occasions said if they explain the differences they would have a better campaign. but they declined to change and instead just cried over how im trying to show how LN is different and making people aware of the risks.

it has been a great laugh that they only call me a troll because someone they like called me a troll, because someone-of-someone they liked called me a troll. again just social drama posturing of no merit.
but it is good to use their own contradictions and admissions against them, even if they do forget 3 weeks later that they got debunked.

maybe if they can check their own opinion and stick to an opinion that can be backed up by code and hard data, without contradictions(flip flops) they might have a better narrative. instead of resorting to pages of social drama

in short. if they stick to facts and not social loyalty ass kissing of a certain group. then there would not be any social drama ending in pages of silly arguments