explaining common things from other topics

[franky1]

#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)

[1715254454]

1715254454

[1715254454]

1715254454

[1715254454]

1715254454

[1715254454]

1715254454

[franky1]

#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

[franky1]

#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

BIP 91 will activate at block 477,120. Theoretically, mining pools will start rejecting blocks that do not signal support for SegWit (BIP 141). In this way, BIP 91 is a “coordination mechanism” that gets other mining pools to follow along or lose out on mining rewards.

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.

[Ucy]

If you try what i think you are probably trying to achieve with your post (very interesting posts by the way), don't you think that will make early holders and those with lots of sats in the past very wealthy?

I think it also depends on how valuable new users would see 1000 sats for example. If you try to make the sats available to most humans in the world while Bitcoin network remains very userful, they could end up pricing 1000 higher than their actual value today and that would make early investors very wealthy. It could also make Bitcoin less valuable in price, depending on different factors like not scaling and not becoming very useful (and easy to use by most people...esp without compromising on its principles).
I wonder what you think about this.

[franky1]

the point is
the economic landscape is changing from users holding/investing in bitcoin
(much like they did with gold in the 1800's)
being promoted that playing with bitcoin is bad, expendive and a hassle (bitcoin is broke)
(gold is broke as a payment tool)

to advertise playing with altnets and altcoins and tokens. which have many flaws. hense me mentioning the risks and facts
..
i understand Ucy suggestive philosophy that in the 1800's bartering gold dust was a headache. where the handling such small amounts took more cost/effort than the value of the dust. and so people traded in their dust for lumpier cheaper metals(nickel/copper coins)
making it cheaper and easier to handle and barter with

0.00000020btc dust = 0.00000226btc fee
20000 Msat tokens = 10 Msat fee          
looks like a good swap for utility..right?!

but thats moving away from allowing everyone utility and holding/bartering with bitcoin(gold)
to become people playing with altnet tokens [*pegged to bitcoin] such as L-btc and Msat
(much like they did with gold promissory notes(bank notes 1900's))

the next stage is to then become the promotion that its easier to atomic swap altnet(offchain) tokens to altcoins when wanting to exit LN
(much like banks did when offering nickel/copper coins for banknotes, instead of just giving back the gold)

[franky1]

the next stage already being used is offering these altnet token before/without bitcoin being confirmed/locked into a user/custodian multisig
-turbo channels and such using 'free instant inbound liquidity'

this is where a custodian already has locks on its UTXO holding. split into <0.04btc lumps (they own the keys)
where they lock it for a [year]
and each month they nominate which user gets that presumed balance as inbound liquidity in their micropayment channel represented as Msats

funny part is although the taint can be seen linking back to a locked btc. the nominated user is not part of the multisig control of it. meaning its not locked just for that users channel and that user alone
because coin was locked WAY WAY WAY before the user even requested some liquidity

this is an economic flaw because
UserA maybe nominated for stash 0.04 from transaction taint:
but nothing stops custodian also using the same stash with another userB,c.d.. at the same time
(LN has no network wide audit stopping double uses of transactions where UTXO is not a specific multisig)

welcome to fractional reserving
the custodian can initially pretend each token [*pegged] with LN taint showing back to a onchain lock
but that onchain tx is not unique to that channel/locked to that specific channel
so if they calculate that on average only 25% of inbound liquidity is ever used. they can risk using that UTXO on 3 channels and have enough average buffer to cover all withdrawals