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

as you say
just having old nodes forget anything below a satoshi wont work.  
leading to old nodes not relay these tx's as they are breaking the transaction value audit

but also
the 'change'(tx fee) which then turns into coinbase reward would also be unauditable
the auditing of all the change wont tally to the same amount as the coinbase fee reward and would void the whole block

which means it involves alot more cludgy code to redefine consensus than just having a new tx format that measures value in sub satoshi units.

though bitcoin even since 2009 has always been denominated in satoshis. where every raw tx on the blockchain has always been in sats.
which is not easy to break out of, while remaining 'backward compatible'
(there are many ways but that involves having old nodes ignore/accept without validation new tx formats)

by the time it gets to about 2045 there may then and only then be a case to change the value denomination to sub satoshi levels as the block reward would soon then become
sats:                 year:
4882812.5   2049
2441406.25   2053
1220703.125   2057
610351.5625   2061
76293.94531   2073
9536.743164   2085
596.0464478   2101

however that then plays into  the 'shareable' units (scarcity) debate. of adding more shareable units available at the bottom end

to anyone(sems theres a few above) still confused about a few truths of LN
lets just use one bit of code example that debunks their thoughts and clears up the issue quick

confusions of some people
a. LN is for bitcoin only 'cos bitcoin'
b. values in LN are measured in things that bitcoin recognises


first note that it allows both pegging iou tokens to bitcoin and litecoin
then note that for:
bitcoin pegged iou
the measure of 50sat/vbyte is 125sat/byte = INSIDE LN 12500 msat tokens

litecoin pegged IOU
the measure of 200sat/vbyte is 50sat/byte = INSIDE LN 50000 msat tokens

heck github has soo many examples of the network being separate and functional for many pegs
and hundreds of examples of the tokens being a different denomination to the peg

..
atleast the liquid network can admit their tokens(L-BTC) are pegged tokens and not play the silly promo fluff of LN which pretends to be bitcoin itself

edit to respond to below
its not just that HTLC are in a different denomination.
but also requiring a separate contract(comitment) to make funds bitcoin network recognisable. where there is a separation between a 'commitment' and a 'HTLC'. where the HTLC is completely different and not bitcoin.

and then also the whole point of the 'dont trust zero confirms' of the commitment(settlement)
meaning a HTLC is 2 'layers' away from being a guaranteed settlement, and just a 'promise of 'i owe you x''

the funniest part is. i am a bitcoin(btc) maximalist. i dont want to go playing on other networks or made/forced to use other networks just to spend my value FAIRLY.
but the few trolls that think LN is bitcoin have also been saying that other altnets(crapcoins) which do have bitcoin compatible transactions that CAN BE REPLAYED on the bitcoin network, have been deemed NOT bitcoin.. very hypocritical and reveals they have no clue. and just trolling their hypocrisies by saying an altnet that CANT be direct replayed.. is bitcoin!!?.

signing a contract that is measured in millisats is not signing a bitcoin transaction

having a bank note saying "we promise to pay the bearer 10pounds of silver" is not actually silver

but as you say doomad
having Kyat and exchanging it for a more valuable currency
is what happens in LN
have millisats and then exchange it for bitcoin
(converting a htlc into a close session bitcoin transaction)

when you can understand the concept of an payment in millisats(htlc).. being a separate thing to an exchange to a bitcoin transaction at a different time. then you might understand that the HTLC(msat) payment (agreement of who owes what) is not the same as a bitcoin transaction.

you seem soo obsessed to the point of being misleading by only wanting to point at the close session exchange and broadcast part.. and completely arrogantly and ignorantly not thinking about the IN LN payment part

but for once. accept this topic is about what happens WITH IN LN at the payment of HTLC

seems you have been mis-informing windfury about the onchain(btc) gold. being exchanged for an offchain
token(msat)
where a protocol is 'trusted' to convert/exchange.. however.. as with all bitcoin principles:
unconfirmed transactions are never guaranteed. never accept zero confirms..
definitely dont trust(think its guaranteed) payments in converted/exchanged units of measure bitcoin does not even understand

..
its actually much safer to tell people the truth about the flaws and isssues and risks of LN so people can make informed decisions about using it. rather then being hyped up to use it and learn the hard way
telling people the risks and letting them try it. is more trusting than fluffing up and misguiding them and seeing them fall fowl to the risks

you mention words like trust and signed.
there are LN walets out their that create channels before a bitcoin transaction is confirmed and locked
there are probably wallets that are using elthree where the channels 'collateral' are not bitcoin transactions
but just purely a balance authorised by a factory where users have to request that balance to be converted to a bitcoin if they ever want to truly exit LN

friends in my neighbourhood know i have lots of funds and am good for it to give them money.
but i can sign anything and show them a bank statement that proves im worth it.
but what im signing is not actually the bank account.
there is still the trust that LATER i will pay what thy are OWED

a contract of whats owed is not the same as a confirmed settled onchain transaction

signing something measured in millisats is not signing a bitcoin transaction

you really do not know all the flaws do you.

devs can make LN wallets that can agree on any silly thing or ignore any silly thing they like. as LN is not a network wide audited payment system.. its just an agreement within the 2 individuals. where those and only those 2 individuals agree on their own terms

i could have channels of(im B)
     C  D
     | /
A--B--E
     | \
     G  F
where BA uses one protocol. where our agreements are measured in millisats
where BC uses another protocol where our IOU are measured in sats
where BD uses another protocol where our IOU are measured in bits
where BE uses another protocol where our IOU are measured in L-btc
where BF uses another protocol where our IOU are measured in furballs
where BG uses another protocol where out IOU are measured in memes

where by when its time to settle/exit LN then we convert the HTLC into a bitcoin transaction
much like HTLC converts millisats to sats

please learn about HTLC's it might really help you out

also each channel can do as many silly or trusted things between us as we can imagine.
as long as we agree on it.
heck it doesnt even matter if the 12 decimals are called millisats or kitten furballs..
it doesnt even have to be 12 decimals. we could use 24 if we wanted.

we dont even have to sign a htlc. we can instead decide to agree on using cat emoji's
the LN network of 32k peers is not auditing our payments within the channel
heck we could be using units of measure of kittyfluff if we want to.

secondly you obsess about the blockchain locks but you dont wish to understand the stuff happening inside LN


the in channel HTLC is not a bitcoin transaction. the denominations the format just dont fit into bitcoins onchain rules. try to understand that then all previous posts might make sense to you
HTLC do not and cannot be broadcast to the bitcoin network
please for the hundredth time.. learn this stuff

the other thing is take any historic IOU. 1890's bank notes dont need countersigning. but were an iou of gold
a cheque doesnt need countersigning. but until its cleared its not settled and thus an iou
even a unconfirmed bitcoin transaction is an IOU(spoiler dont accept zero confirms)

heck i have a raw TX here with gmaxwells address on it..
i signed my transaction..
but its not actually in any mempool or blockchain. soo the question "does it really exist and will gmax ever actually get it" (spoiler:no)
i know he might like to argue that on this forum i have just announced he is owed something.
but .. ofcourse.. not on blockchain=not real

lastly HTLC's get renegged all the time. thats the point. people renegotiate how much each other owes them without actually settling

im surprised it takes you years to even understand these basic concepts of trade, negotiations, contracts.. as its pretty common life stuff

not to want to knit pick your knitpick or o_e_l_e_o..but.. i will

a library of 2048 words
is binary of eleven bits

one bit:        1=2
two bits:      11=4
three bits:   111=8
four bits:     1111=16
five bits:      11111=32
six bits:       111111=64
seven bits:   1111111=128
eight bits:    11111111=256
nine bits:     111111111=512
ten bits:       1111111111=1024
eleven bits    11111111111=2048

this topic made no specification to be anal towards CORES bip.. nor any other.
so i just stuck to the layman of MATH and logic.
seems a shame many people want to be anal and only want to discuss one softwares version.
even when thte topic creator is asking about different key lengths (options outside the bip)

anyway lets get back to the point
so knowing each seed-word is 11 bits.
knowing there are 12 seed-words

simple math of 11*12=132
12 seed words of eleven bits is 132

yes i know that anything beyond 128bit is cut short in the curve/hash process

but this topics question was not about priv-public keypair entropy after the curve-has process. it was about the initial seed words.

i could go into the nuances of how there is more then one private key per public key.. (the point your moving into) but thats not the topic

my point was more about the human flaws of entropy of the seed words at the beginning.
the security level of seed words.. not the latter keypair

EG is it better to have a 12 seed with a library of 32k words
or a 20 seed using a library of 2048

the amount of americans that got covid is lower then the amount that had the vaccine
the amount of people that ended up in hsopital due to covid. is higher then those that got the vaccine
the amount of people that died due to covid is higher than those that died from vaccine

EG lets say the 33mill covid cases were say only the 33% mild-severe ones that got tested. so lets make it a badecker approved exaggeration 100mill that had covid from asymptomatic-severe
with 600k deaths.. thats at badecker approved 0.6% death rate for covid

well 177mill had double dose vaccine..
so if badecker thinks vaccine is worse.. then there would be 1million deaths due to vaccine..(same 0.6%)
so badecker lets see your 1m vaccine deaths

oh wait. badecker will just reply with some lame insult rebuttal but no data, no stats, no reports, no proof, no evidence

and yes badecker i actually manipulated the covid/death rate in your favour.
just to show a lower % for you to then try find some vaccine death numbers to try to come close to
reality is more like 60m for 600k death(1%) where by for those above 45 its more then 1% and those under 30 its under 1%

but instead of settling for 1% ill be happy if you can even find anything close to a 0.6% death rate for vaccine..
so try and prove your point. or accept the reality that you are just wrong

so as you say IN LN you hold IOU

as for asking me about my LN usage
i am not a fangirl that uses LN for its intended use with its limited scope of trying to show off how it works
EG making penny value transactions for silly forum avatars just to show off LN
instead i have used it to see where the flaws are. i have looked at the code i have studied it and i have done many things.

unlike some

the bitcoin funds on the blockchain that are locked are the collateral
the millisats on LN or the L-BTC tokens on liquid are just pegged tokens and not the collateral.

EG 1950's bank notes were not the collateral of gold.. gold is the collateral of gold. and bank notes are just the IOU that can be redeemed for gold 70 years ago

there are no bitcoins in LN or liquid

atleast most liquid devs can be honest about calling the tokens, tokens. shame some people in this topic like doomad and windfury who are not even devs cant grasp the concept


the IN LN payments have no penalties..
what doomad and windfury keep talking about is the settling up/close session stuff

ill give them another example
you WIRE TRANSFER funds into paypal. and then you make paypal balance payments to ebay
when they can understand the paypal-ebay balance stuff is not the same as a bank wire deposit/withdrawal
then you might understand the differences between inside LN and outside LN

seems too many people are too hard pressed to either admit the difference or understand or even see the difference between a bitcoin transaction and a LN payment

so its no wonder they have no understanding

as for doomads usual superman to the rescue defence of windfury.. yet again doomad flew in too fast and tried to throw punches too fast without realising what he was doing.

so one more time
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE BITCOIN ONCHAIN SETTLING TRANSACTIONS

this is about the IN LN PAYMENTS
they are measured in millisats and those contracts CAN BE RENEGGED ON in multiple ways
hense the IOU
an IOU is a contract that has not been settled

why.. well thats easy ..because the LN HTLC IN MILLISATS are not the same format or denomination as a bitcoin settlement transaction. and the funds are not settled/cleared/guaranteed to clear
there are many ways to reneg on the IOU
not just within LN
not just at the countersign of the settlement
not just at the broadcast
not just at the mempool

doomad can say all the BS he wants but i quoted something from the devs of a LN wallet from the LN wallet github that counters doomads fluff

so get the hint.. from the LN devs themselves: read it and weep
[/quote]

if you are still unsure.. try reading the code first. there are many examples but i showed the most layman version because it seems alot of people cannot read  anything more difficult that a glossy promotional advert graphic

and yes even i cant believe that doomad after 4 years is still saying the same fluff without checking
its as if he doesnt want to be truthfull. he just wants to be loyal to his wife windfury

when you are at a bar. and to do a favour for a friend.. you and the friend agree on an IOU.
however its an IOU and remains an IOU until its actually 'paid up' and settled..

heck other factors you need to consider(as its obvious you have avoided)
regarding the close session transactions
everything unconfirmed in a mempool is just waiting to be settled but no guarantee it will confirm
again. dont accept zero confirms. is a principal thats been around forever in bitcoin


its like writing a cheque. yes you signed it.... yes you might also have a debit card thats used as a 'cheque guarantee card' to prove you have worth.. but knowing the cheque is not going to be cleared that same hour. allows the other party to mess around and spend his funds elsewhere. making what you are owed.. not arrive in the end
..

now take a breath. because the bit below is about the internal payments within LN. which are not to be confused with the close channel transactions.
..
note:
a close session/commitment transaction or htlc. are not the same thing.
payments within LN use Msat
where they do not conform to the bitcoin network format

where msat units 4 significant figures different than bitcoin sats
and where a payment using msats wont be accepted by the bitcoin network
then you realise that doing payments in msats wont get confirmed. until you later convert the iou into something bitcoin will accept(msat divide by 1000)


if you cannot tell the difference between an Msat and an sat. then dont reply
msats. aka LN denominated tokens are not bitcoin satoshi's
LN payments on the LN network use Msats
before settling to broadcast.
a LN tokened payment needs to be converted to a bitcoin native sat amount.

in short and in very layman terms
a LN payment in Msat. is an IOU. that needs to be converted into a different 'note' that can then be settled

a basic laymans view:
a 12 word seed using a 2048 word-library results in each seed-word being expressed as 11 bits from
00000000000 abandon
to
11111111111 zoo
obviously 12 seed-words = 12*11=132bits of entropy

which is far lower than a private keys 256bit length
after all all private keys derived from a 12seed are all within the first 132 bits of a 256privkey
where as:
14 words=154
16 words=176
18 words=198
20 words=220
22 words=242
23 words=253

so having more seed-words than 12, upto 23 can add more entropy

obviously these extra unused bits can be used for nonces/indexes to then be able to make a crap tonne of keypairs using the same 12 words
where a 23word seed only has 3 bits spare so can only make 8 keypairs using the 23word seed
            22word seed has 14 spare bits so can make 16384 keypairs using 22 word seed

22 words with enough indexes to make 16k of keypairs. is enough for all purposes and has enough security 242 entropy
...

because all seed-words have the possibility of everything from 00000000000 to 11111111111 having means anything above 22 seed-words becomes meaningless

but even just 12 seed-words is more entropy than needed. where even if a bruteforcer was to start at
abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon
abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon abandon
and tried every option

they still would need to pass their project down to their great great great great  * xxx grandkid to keep the project going

..
the only real leakage of entropy. is if people decide to use words personal to them. common words. rather than letting a randomiser pick randomly from the 2048 library

eg more likely to say 'work' 'update' but not likely to say 'voyage' 'vicious'

having a 12 word-seed of a word-library of 15bits(32k library) using a random picker
is far better than
having 16 words of human chosen personal words from the 2048 library
even if mathematically the entropy of both are nearly the same

the issues with anti-racism is where it becomes so woke they actually start segregating people of the world into groups

its the same with LGB group.
by labelling them as LGB or black instead of just human. they are segregating themselves out.
they are trying to get different treatment than other humans.
they want to be recognised as different to other humans

its like cities offering neighbourhoods like 'little china' so that chinese can feel comfortable and together..
end result is a prison estate where only chinese should exist.

the over woke 'integration' plans end up being segregation plans

a white british person is just called british
a black british person is called african-carribean
a white american is just american
a black american is called afro-american or more recently black-american

i wonder if the hypocritical overwokes would start to call whites as
blonde american
darkhair american
ginger american

and see how long that lasts for them to become awake to their previous woke

or he knows earth is screwed and he is just preparing his exit plan.
nice landscape quiet living accommodation on another planet. far away from earth

mcafee and epstein are on two different levels of criminality.
hense me loosely saying tax was civil.. where as kiddy fiddling is definitely criminal

epstein suicided himself because he screwed kids.. then kids screwed him in court and he knew his life was screwed so only option was to screw his bedsheets around his neck

mcafee however has some mental issues. and probably depression. in reality its more likely he knew he would suicide himself once his reputation is tarnished and he cant be public 'free' guy anymore.
so preparing for his death he wanted to to appear like his paranoia and narcissism was real by saying 'if im dead someone done it'

you see it many times with manic depressives. they want to suicide themselves. but they do it in ways that doesnt make it look like it was their choice (suicide by cop)

^ there opens another flaw
most onchain locks are LOCKED. with a time period. meaning you cant exactly just close channels on a whim

LN wallets dont have a chat feature to discuss when someone wants to agree on a settlement. so most of the time people are on autopilot where the settlement is done when the time period expires

so forget being lucky to settle when fee's are low. unless you have good contact/communication with your favourite coffee shop to get them to agree to settle

if they see that you have settled early without their consent. they can see that as a violation of the channel contract.
so yea beg and plead and be nice to your starbucks manager.

^ there describes the opening of another flaw

people cannot predict what they may want to buy in the next week or month.
so the supposed opening a channel with a coffee shop and then closing a channel premise is flawed because it ends up being spending 2 onchain(open+close) just to buy coffee

the real thing is people dont end up having lots of small channels with their temporary retailer.
instead they have channels a few hub/spoke/hops away and hop the path to their temporary retailer has value and is online at the point of purchase
this requires the trust and ideals of several people inbetween

also users wont want to set up dozens of accounts splitting up their funds for the hopes of multiple paths. because they end up having to close channels more often to rebalance the funds

EG if you only trust $200..
and a coffee is $4 thats only 50 coffees in a 1 channel route.
but its only 10 coffess if you split your funds over 5 channels.
thus costing you more onchain to open 5 channels of only 10 coffees each. and then close them to move funds to the channels that have good routes
(you cant predict the goodroute vs bad route before hand)
studies have seen 50-90% of payments fail due to not having viable routes.
this study showed a 60% success rate for a single $4 coffee
buying 2 coffees is a 50% chance of success
buying 10 coffees for colleagues in your office.. 10% chance of success


what people end up doing is getting rid of the headaches of multi channal fund splitting hop model network.
and instead deposit funds into a service and let the service manage the channels offchain and reaggregate funds offchain as the funds are with the manager.

this will result in centralisation

the point of centralisation is that
while promoting fast payments for coffee. results in users using litewallets.
(they cant take their desktops with them to starbucks)

with the invention of factories so that users dont have to have their desktop at home online 24-7 just so they can buy coffee on there phone.
(yep someone told me that lame rebuttal that people will have their home desktop and remote access just to use their independant litewallet app (facepalm))

so knowing majority of people wont be full node users and instead rely on factories to deposit to and then have elthree 'accounts' managed by factories will be centralisation

take my network topology tree in a previous post.
userf5e can only pay userf1a via one route that relies on the root(center) of the network

users wont want to have to split funds over different accounts.
99% of the world who get paid a salaray do not shift their wage into different accounts to just pay coffee in one account. groceries in another account, and so on.
they just use their same debit card

also they wont want fullnodes at home just to run a remote app on phone("for independence"). they wont want to have to pay large onchain fees to rebalance channels. they will seek the cheapest most convenient and lazy way to make payments. and thats a basic fact of common sense life

so once you realise that factories are becoming a thing because devs realise the need for factories
once you accept the direction the network is taking.
once you accept how cludgy it is to use LN at a hop eltoo model. and how convenient users end up using factories elthree hub model
then maybe you can start understanding the network centralisation effect

and please dont overpromise over promote the happy fluffy utopia of eltoo hop model.
alot of people want to know the harsh truths because they want to understand and make a valid and informed decision of reality. not hopes and dreams

analogy
banks have individual factories(bank branches) with routing/sort codes to pass funds up through the the hierarchy.
basically a bank branches are the channel co-signer
 which lead to the hubs and exchanges at the center(research UK bacs, swift and all the other banking networks in the payment hierarchy of fiat)

..
as for the others debating the concept of IOU
its very simple.
a HTLC is not a bitcoin broadcastable tx.
the denominations will not be understood by bitcoin.
when travelling through routes its not measured in satoshis.

also
if i wrote you a raw tx that was broadcastable. i signed it.. but.. i have yet to broadcast it and thus its not a confirmed transaction on the blockchain.. can you claim the funds are yours now free and clear settled. or that you are possibly waiting and hoping for funds you now think i owe you..
the answer is. your still stuck at the IOU stage until its actually confirmed on the blockchain.

the whole point of bitcoin is irreversible, no countersigning, no third party interference payment network.
LN is none of those things. yet pretends to be "bitcoin" ,... but without all the fascinating features of bitcoin

in my eyes. if its not on the blockchain.. it aint your funds. as thats what bitcoins purpose was
even devs tell people dont be stupid accepting zero confirms

so its wise to highlight that LN is not a settled/confirmed payment. and is still the limbo of someone owing funds until its actually confirmed. once people know the risks they can lose value on LN and that other issues can break the IOU promise(contract) .. then would be more cautious and aware of the risks. instead of falsely being promoted that LN is bitcoin and everything is fully pink clouds of utopian perfection

there are many different levels of conspiracy nuts
1. easily led fangirls. who are a fan of an influencer. but its just a phase that they grow out
   examples are the fangirls of kardashians and trump.
   fans while famous but they get bored when not on TV weekly.
   fangirls no longer buy the influencers advertised fake tan when they no longer see their influencer

2. idealist fangirls where the influencers really try to sell a lie to a group of common interest
    once a fangirl has been told enough about why the lie is a lie. they get angry but then wake up

3. pathalogical fangirls that are addicted and psychotically too deep in the lie to escape
    they kind of know their influencers are a lie. but admitting is is a defeat and a loss.
    they would save face and double down on advertising lies more rather than admit they believed a lie


badecker is a number 3
though its the hardest idiot type to break. it becomes a task of not actually trying to cure him of his perpetual adverts of lies. but to speak down to him and debunk him so that he doesnt recruit more idiots
in short if you can show other readers that badecker is an idiot. other idiots wont b so quick to believe badecker

badecker doesnt think viruses are real probably more so because his adverts dont go viral and he has never experienced fame. so he feels because he cant spread lies. biological viruses cant spread either

oh heck.. just for entertainment and fun and in no seriousness. lets go full conspiracy

so his kid wrote a tweet about happy fathers day and saying how he was in prison that day..
but mcafee dun goofed he retweeted the kids message afterwards.
(not possible to do stuff while in jail)

so he must have got out of jail.. after the 20th

..
maybe just maybe he isnt dead and its just a bit of misinformation to get US courts off his back

he was a bit paranoid. he thought the tax evasion arrest was just a sidenote. where he thought the US was after him for murder torture, theft, drugs and scams

exactly.. there was a UK retail mogul that owned many retail brands. he syphoned money and leached at the employees pension fund. spent it in spain on luxury houses and yachts.. yet no arrest no extradition