blocks are made on average (of a rule of 2016 blocks over 14 days) of 1 block every 10 minutes

sometime a block can happen in 2 minutes sometimes in 20 but average is 10 mins
much like trains. they suggest they arrive every 10 miinutes. but some can be early and some can be late

to be in the very next block(train). usually people pay more then a fee other transaction pay. putting you top of the list
its like being at a train station. waving your hand in their air with a stash of bank notes getting the conductor attention to let you on first.(bribery)
so if you need to get on the very next train. arriving in roughly 10 minutes. then you will bribe a higher fee. (purposefully forgetting you left extra cash on the seat for the conductor to pick up)

but there is no hard rule that the pool(conductor) has to let you on no matter what you pay. no rule to enforce a locked amount. its just a barter system of guessing what you think would be a tempting bribe to get on the next block(train) the most

when making a transaction
EG
1Alice4bc (0.001) -> 1bob3gh (0.0008)
                          -> 1alic4bc (0.000102) remainder change back to alice

the total going out is less that what alice started with.
this 'forgetful' difference(0.000098) becomes the transaction fee.

there may be many many mechanisms/formulaes that wallets chose to decide how much to 'forget' in the audit of the input and output balances.

some do a calculation of the previous x blocks amount of total bytes/total total fee's collected to set an average price per byte the network is currently allowing.

some look at how many transaction bytes are in their mempool to estimate the demand
some may do more complex stuff.

bitcoin has no hard rule. (which is a flaw) whereby the mining pools can set their own decision of what transactions to accept, ignore into their block

making any fee 'estimation' a guess at most. leading people to end up 'just paying more' (not giving as much change back to themselves)

double spends:
the blockchain will never have 2 UXTO's (unspent transactions of the same parent)
block rejects/orphans ensure only 1 utxo is valid/remains

a double spend is not about onchain transactions existing in double..
but services that give away products at the sight of a zero-confirm/low confirm.. and then find that transaction disapears(never confirms, gets confirmed then orphaned).. so the service doesnt get paid

meaning the person(spender) has got the goods and kept the funds. via one version of his transaction dispearing

its about the service/retailer/recipient of funds not waiting for good confirms to guarantee they are paid before releasing goods/service.

its been many posts and many hours. and i still see people beating their chest showing off how much they know about the math of the hashing cycle of sha, ecdsa and ripemd160..

but the question of SEEDS.. is the part pre hashing cycle
and thats about the human security of what randomiser/human personal selection entropy
which can make the difference between 500¹² or 2048¹²

yet again. if they want to talk about the 2¹⁶⁰ post hash cycle(a)
they are ignoring the less secure(b,c)

a. 2¹⁶⁰ =      1461501600000000000000000000000000000000000000000
b. 2048¹² =                   5444517900000000000000000000000000000000
c. 500¹² =                                       488281250000000000000000000000

by the way.
having 10 seed words of 32000 library(d) is more secure than 12seed with with randomiser(b) or personally chosen(c)
d. 3200¹⁰ =        1125899900000000000000000000000000000000000000

and thats without having to do any gorilla chest beating of whos the smartest and explaining the hashing functions

yep you will have much better luck brute forcing seeds in (b,c,d) than you would by trying all (a) combinations
so. try to keep to the topic of the SEEDs and not the post ripemd160 entropy

remember the question is
"does more seed words"
not
"whats the most combinations post keyhash cycle"

funny part is..
the sender holds the keys..
the receiver is promised the funds. but does not have the key.
the receiver only ever gets a key to the funds. to make the previous commitment void of spending.

EG i sign a tx giving value to rath.. i dont broadcast it..
is rath guaranteed to be paid.. nope because the funds are not on his keys, not confirmed on the blockchain
the funds are still on my locked UTXO

but one layer down. a HTLC is not even a bitcoin format contract. thus not even having the potential of rath broadcasting. whats needed to be done is convert a htlc contract(i ou) into a commitment transaction..
but again even this commitment is not yet broadcast. so not yet a guaranteed settlement

..
the other item of discussion.. the channels being unbalanaced by not always being pegged to a utxo.
even loyce and rath have quoted that due to users using a services wallet. the wallet creates the unbacked htlc's with the supposed premise that "normally" they wil get paid later. whereby its a game of trust and honour. and not a fixed rule of guarantee.

as rath quotes
an IOU is NOT an instrument guaranteeing payment
and a HTLC does not guarantee payment
a HTLC is not even a bitcoin transaction.. thus a htlc is an IOU

a HTLC at a later time is negotiated into a commitment..
meaning a HTLC is not a negotiated instrument of guarantee.. a commitment transaction is.


here is the thing..
there is nothing wrong with some choosing to use zero-confirms and services of trust.. as long as people highlight and honestly tell people of the lack of guarantee so that people can be aware and not have to risk large sums.
much like people warn others about risk of using exchanges where they tell people that the mysql balance on the order books is not the same as a utxo under the persons control

meaning if you just admit the risks and actually say its ok for coffee amounts as losses might be low, but not lambo amount.. fine tell them the risks and let them decide.

but to pretend its a 'guaranteed/secure/no fault' all utopian fluff of security levels that match a confirmed transaction on a blockchain.. is being very very misinforming and not morally correct aswell

what the two people quoted above dont know.. is due to only them not knowing due to them not doing the research

reality is teams have gone to china. and have looked at all aspects.
thousands of teams have also studied the alpha strain(wuhan) and seen that it has NO signs of crispa

its then the junk media that idiots view. where idiots only seen junk mis-info that pretend nothing has been investigated. that leads the 2 people above to think nothing has been done.


so the problem is not that no investigations were done.
but junk media have failed to actually look at what investigations were done. and instead made up stories to appease their idiot viewers

vitamin D is a tool/transport mechanism for OTHER minerals/enzymes to make bones stronger..
yes if you have weak bones then you are not making good antibodies.
but there are many factors for weak bones and also many factors for weak immunity
vitamin D is not the sole option/reason..

for instance vitamin D is just the transport vessel for calcium and other enzymes. you can try over dosing on vit D but your bones actually need calcium. so if the reason for weak bones is that you avoid calcium in your diet or your gut dislikes calcium. then no amount of vitD will solve it
take diabetes as an example
its the same issue as overdosing on insulin. when its actually glucose thats the active ingredient that is needed to be regulated.. too much insulin causes issues
too much vitD causes issues
-minor overdose=nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, fatique, excessive thirst, confusion(similar to heat stroke)
-mild overdose=stomach pain, diarrhoea, constipation, kidney stones
-prolonged mild=bone loss.. yes too much vit D does the opposite of its intent
-severe=kidney failure
..
as for parasite medications like ivermectin and HCQ. its not the 'killer' part that does the job.. its the immune surpressor part. AKA hide the symptoms of imune system function(cough and fever).
so its not a covid cure but a immune symptom hider.
meaning taking these at the wrong time allows the virus to ravage the body and cause lung damage where you only feel breathing difficulty then cough up blood without the early warning system or the system to fight the virus to prevent the damage!!
         
when you learn that cough and fever is your bodies defense. you realise turning that off should only occur when and only when the virus has been fought off and all thats left is the immune response symptoms that are causing trouble. timing judgement of when to take it is the issue here. usually its 10 days after getting covid. definitely not before or during incubation period

just wake up to reality and do some research..
you pretend to want natural immunity.. but then advertise stuff to switch off natural immunity

LN devs crippled bitcoins onchain capacity/utility to promote users to move over to LN before LN was a proper beta working project

EG at the moment a blocks can only hold so many open and close sessions
so imagine people having 4 channels and locks for about 1 month(standard predictable spending plan)
4 close previous sessions 4 open new session. that 8 transactions per user per month.
(1.6kb)
so for now thats call that 1000 users per block
well over 4032 blocks(a month) thats only 4million users efectively able to open and close sessions per month.
but here is the thing
it only works as upto 4 million users of LN if:
no other transactions are allowed(no legacy transactions. no exchange reserves rebatching)
everyone timed their close-reopen sessions precisely not to bottleneck with others
they intend to spend more times within LN than 8 times onchain

EG if your an ebayer that only uses paypal 2 times a month. where your offered paypal to ebay fee's of 1c
but it costs you $16 just to get to use paypal membership each month just to get the privilege of 1c fee.
but you could just buy something on ebay direct with your bank card for $2 each($4 total)
it then makes using paypal less of an incentive

LN is not a solution for everyone its a niche market separate network for spammer(multiple spenders)

the bitcoin devs made onchain transaction fee's increase. removed any rational fee formulae mechanism of fairness and just promoted everyone should use LN even if they are not a frequent user. and even when using LN there is a silly ignorance// because not all channels/route will work all the time.

its like they tried to run before they could even get out the womb

in short yes.

CSW is not satoshi.. full stop . end of story move on

the real bitcoin inventor(satoshi) does not need to return or make an appearance or prove anything.

for instance
i have coins on the blockchain. but i dont need to annouce to the world my human id to use my coins.
i dont need to make any public appearances or show any driving licence to spend my coins.

bitcoin does not need satoshi's human ID presence to function.

the human behind the first mined coins can spend them and change it into fiat to buy an island without having to announce his human identity.

the human behind the first mined coins can without having to spend or announce or publicise himself. just create a new persona /username and interact with people on this forum without them having to know who he is

but for anyone wanting to say they are satoshi... they better prove it.

"we"? nope
there is no community loss.. CSW achieved nothing more than any old lady could,,,

just like fridgit old woman who complain to TV stations to not show sexualised tv shows before 9pm. that old lady does not need to own the tv show or any porn to make a claim to stop someone displaying something.

all it means is a website cannot display a document.

it is not proof of ownership of document or anything else
other websites including government sites have already started displaying the whitepaper as a act of defiance against CSW.
cobra only lost his websites case to display it because cobra didnt want to turn up and identify himself
hundreds of corporations and government sites are not afraid of revealing themselves and putting CSW back in his cave if he tried to sue them

there is also a group that sued CSW to provide proof of ID

theymos ensured satoshis forum account cant be hacked. by putting it into a perma-ban status for security
so no one not even the original user of the account can ever use it again

signing  a transaction from a known utxo spend of satoshi (EG the one he sent to hal and got change back) would be true proof.
but we all know CSW never was satoshi. so no point even asking or waiting for such

best to move on and forget CSW existence. just talking about him is more fame than he deserves.

#3
[false narrative] 2017 fork was soft and consensual

many falsely beleive that people chose segwit naturally in 2017 without any controversy and without any bad methods to get it activated..
.. however in mid july(23rd) segwit only had 45% acceptance and was looking to not get activated. so segwit supporters decided to create a new bip91(NYA) in which they would reject any block NOT supporting segwit. within a week
thus making the only blocks that were allowed. be blocks showing 100% segwit acceptance. which then made segwit lock-in occur within just a week of the NYA threshold

https://i.redd.it/7putyzz1flv01.png
as shown here the only reason the red line(bip141(bip9)) got 100% is because the blue line(bip91) got its 80% threshold on 23rd
https://www.coindesk.com/bip-91-locks-means-bitcoin-not-scaled-yet

but here was the ploy
those in the central voicebox control of bitcoin said they would promise things the community want, but only after the community gave the voicebox what they wanted(the corporations associated with the barry silbert group and core).
this was known as the NYA agreement

those opposing segwit did not change their code or make any decisions to be rejected or made into an altcoin. but those supporting segwit did change their code and didnt cause the flags to reject the opposition and cause an altcoin

pre-empt usual rants
i am not an altcoiner or a BCHer. i am a bitcoin(btc)maximalist. pretty much one of just a few remaining bitcoin loyalists that dont like agenda's of pushing large sections of the community over to alternative networks(altcoins, sidechains, altnets, offchains)


 i just want to make sure the facts of history are clear and certain people be put back in their place.

other websites not afriad to reveal their identity are already putting the white paper up. hoping CSW will sue them just to put him back in his cave of deceit

its not a revelation or a proof of anything. its just a 'dont put a document on your website' order
some people dont own porn but are able to complain and use the courts to get certain websites and tv shows to stop displaying porn or sexual acts before a certain time. or at all.
its not proof the porn/ sexualised show belongs to the complainer. its just a 'remove it' order


of course the idiot CSW will pretend its proof of identity. but he will soon learn the hard way

the IN LN payments are not using bitcoin scripts. your talking about the latter end session commitments. not the in channel payments known as HTLC

HTLC are measured in millisats and not formatted to be broadcast/accepted by the bitcoin network

its these very same HTLC that are not bitcoin formats that allow for custodials(elthree) to 'print' their own channel balance and manage customers. as its the manager/custodian that then when end sessions are needed aggregate the HTLC's into a commitment they sign to then allow onchain withdrawals. otherwise users could also just request the aggregated funds held within the custodian be reused to open new sessions without needing to touch the blockchain

once you separate the idea of the open/close onchain transactions. from the inside LN htlc payments. you start to see how millisats are not actually bitcoin

oh and one last tip...
lightning is not subservient, not solely functional to bitcoin. many LN apps alow utility with many other altcoins too.

in short LN is nor forced to play by bitcoin rules. because htlc's are not network wide audited

#2
[false narrative]lightning network is bitcoin

lightning network is a separate independent network.
it can use its pegged tokens(milisats) in combination with multiple networks
take LND software that allows litecoin and bitcoin
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainreg/chainregistry.go
note how it uses millisats for the IN CHANNEL payments. where these inchannel payments are in 12 decimal denominations not 8. and how these inchannel payments (HTLC) are not broadcastable to other networks blockchains

its also worth knowing. that LN is a not a network wide auditng system. and is just a private agreement between to partners of a channel. whereby the only rules that need to apply are the ones the partners both use.

where by other channels can have different rules
so just be aware that LN is not bitcoin and does not have the security of bitcoin
after all if you should not accept zero confirm transactions.. remember that risk when using LN because in LN you ARE accepting zero confirm payments. and those payments are more risk of not paying out. upto 50% more risk

#1
scarcity
in bitcoin. at code level there is no such thing as btc
everything at code and data level of the blockchain and transactions is measured in sats. always has been

btc is just a box term for a collection of 100000000 sats.
meaning 100000000 people can have a sat. so the scarcity is not the box but the shareable units
estimates of around 2100000000000000 shareable units to ever exist in the future

when you realise the box itself is not the value. but the amount of shareable units inside the box that gives the box value. you will start to understand

take a fruit analogy:
if there was a box containing 2 apples and it was named "box of apples". and only sold as 'box of apples $2'
only 1 can have 'box of apples'
the initial thought is only one person can have the box and only 1 person gets to taste an apple


reality is . no one actually cares about the cardboard. what they really want is the shareable apples
they just thought that the only option to get to taste an apple is to buy a whole box
because everything is priced by the boxload

most people think there are only 1 way to increase supply.
have more boxes..
however there is another.. have more apples per box and allow apples to be sold singularly

once you relieve yourself of this notion of box measures. and realise you can taste an apple without buying a whole box
you start to appreciate that scarcity is about how many can eat fruit.. and not about how many can chew on cardboard

(no one cares about that there is only 192thousand tonnes of gold. because everyone is able to buy part of 6.7nilloin ounces of gold.. meaning literally everyone can have gold)

to save more meandered off topic rebuttles from certain people. have scarcity debate here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5346487.msg57340802#msg57340802


custodial services take the deposits and funds become theirs. (like exchanges do)
they can then using their app have their customers be giving HTLC millisat balance that never need to broadcast onchain. whereby the HTLC get re-aggregated by the service when users want to close channels
so its not that complicated to do "elthree" stuff
after all channels are not network wide audited so only need to be agreed by the counterparties within the channels (a level below the service) where the service manages any disagreements. thus no special onchain rules need apply
much like bitcoin does not need to fork due to an exchange changing how it saves its customers MYSQL balance in their database
much like how MTGox-BTC-e years ago didnt need to request a bitcoin fork to allow mtgox/btc-e to have 'payment codes' for their in exchange payments between customers

heck people can make elthree stuff where the HTLC balance of all service customers is measured in kittens cats and tigers. where the aggregation converts it into sats by the service at close session

if you look at the first few transactions
bc1qmex.. bc1qmex bc1qmex

its the bitmex exchange
they seems to be shuffling funds around in their coldwallets

strangely they pay 0.005btc for 190 and 160btc
0.005 for 1.4btc
0.002 for 24btc

yet again..
my whole point was..
the HUMAN ELEMENT

someone handpicking 12 words. means their entropy of library might just be 500 words they commonly use and are personal to them..
EG many IT/Network nerds might choose words affiliated with IT/networking. and not even think to uuse words like 'voyage' / vicious

so 12 words of a library of 500 handpicked words is very bad.
(its why a few passphrase wallets got emptied)

next up is the HUMAN element of when using a randomiser
is it better to have 12 words or 24 words of a 2048 library
or a 20 word of a 32k library

and the answer is. most people write down their seeds so human memory is of no issue and so a 20 word of 32k library allows for the most randomness

..
i honestly thought this topic was about seed word security of DO MORE SEED WORDS EQUAL BETTER SECURITY
seems many want to think its about the edcsa sha ripemd160 process, and the pre to post bit differences either side of that process..

but anyways moving on, ive said my peace

answering to below..
(sticking with speaking laymans<-emphasis)
(using basic math of entropy and not the technical anals of acertain wallets prefered method of conversion)
i know you want to obsess about the 2¹⁶⁰ to go through all keys..

but for a HUMAN wanting to know his security risk of HIS seed key..
ill lay out the math
how many combinations:
a. 2¹⁶⁰ =      1461501600000000000000000000000000000000000000000
b. 2048¹² =                   5444517900000000000000000000000000000000
c. 500¹² =                                       488281250000000000000000000000

a=ripemd160 combinations
b=12 seed with 2048 library+good randomiser
c=manually choosing personalised words from common vocab

his 12 word seed with 2048 library. can be found easier then ripemd160
his personally chosen words from his common vocab can be found even easier

so if a brute forcer was looking for a particular persons seed and knew his vocab preference by scanning all his posts and finding the words he uses.
a bruteforcer could find his seed in 19 less significant figures then bruteforcing all ripemd combinations

it doesnt matter about how many combinations there are in the hash process
because his seed keys have less combinations at the beginning

its never a debate about total combinations a process allowes
its that his key is somewhere in the middle of
5444517900000000000000000000000000000000
or
488281250000000000000000000000
before it even goes though any particular wallets prefered conversion method

sats have always been a shareable unit.
there have always been a rule that the circulation from 5000000000sats per block will halv after 210k blocks and cause a result near on 2100000000000000 sat total cap eventually
yep since day one only 2100000000000000 shareable units.
thats the real scarity

something is not more scarce because redefining 2100000000000000 parts into a buzzword for human eyes as 21m..
because sharing divisions of this buzzword has always been possible. the shareable potential still remains

heck if i created a new buzzword of just 21,000megabitcoins does not make it more scarce
because there is still currently still only 2100000000000000 shareable units (sats limit of future circulation)

however to increase the sharability reduces the scarcity.

imagine something is set in stone.. a round whole pizza can only be shared as a round whole pizza. a pizza is the smallest unit..
ordering 10 pizza's = only 10 people max can share
but but inventing sliced pizza..
means more can share and suddenly pizza is not as scarce as more then 10 can get a slice
(research share dilution.. same company. but more shares)
..
many people think bitcoin was invented from btc with decimal divisions being the temporary flimsy buzzwords that can change

when reality it was built from satoshi mutliples up where btc is the empty buzzword of just human visual
changing the 'must consume sats in whole units' sats rule.. to allowing slices of sats. is allowing more sharing and thus less scarcity


the coding decisions making using bitcoin less useful and less fair, was done purposefully just to promote new features by swaying people "they save money by using new features".. while at code level its purposefully making old standard features more expensive and NOT making the new features cheaper then ever before... but just cheaper then the new recently added extra premium added to old feature

.take the vbyte to bytes that put legacy transactions at a premium 4x fee
 its never been a segwit is 4x cheaper then fee formulae of 2016
 its legacy is 4x more then 2016 and segwit is less then new legacy high premium

.take the lack of any tx fee formula to actually accurately gauge value/age of coin to set true
 premium/discount that has real purpose
 EG coins under 10 confirms should for efficiency purposes cost more then coins over 144 confirms..
 (as it makes spamming tx more expensive)
 someone moving $1billion pays the same fee as someone moving $20.. (thats bad methodology)
 someone moving a coin every block pays same as someone moving once a month (thats bad too)

.take having everyone pay more than 2016 levels .. as a lame excuse to deter spammers just makes everyone not want to use it as much

there are many websites that have turned off bitcoin support and moved to accepting altnet currencies just due to the fee cludgy decisions

after all if paypal started saying that people gotta pay $2+ each time they do something on ebay. people would pay for things using a different payment service

i avoid any ATM that has fees when there are other ATM's that dont. and thats the point