[self-moderated] Is LN Bitcoin? franky1: About scaling, on-chain and off-chain

[DooMAD]

aaaanndd domad has gone back to ignorance of the consensus stuff of 2017 all over again
pretending it didnt happen.

i though finally 2022 will be the year doomad remembers and accepts the 148/91 stuff.. understanding what happened. the real sequence of events.
but looks like he instead has retreated back to his other rhetoric of ignorance again..

Bottom line:  Even if we accepted your version of events (and I'm not convinced anyone does), you have still yet to propose an alternative that doesn't amount to "devs can't code things I don't personally approve of" (and also split the network).

That's not a "rhetoric".  That's you failing to provide a compelling argument.

[1714568776]

1714568776

[1714568776]

1714568776

[1714568776]

1714568776

[1714568776]

1714568776

[franky1]

funny that you now want to ignore that 148/91 happened(again), and pretend it didnt happen, because.... i said it did happen so it must be wrong..

you have the very oddest gauge of deciding an opinion.. you base what is in your reality, not by evidence like block data and bips.. but by who is telling you it, and are they kissing your ass or debating you.

your opinions seem to be based on social bias where you ignore evidence just to stay loyal to your friends opinion, or to say the opposite of evidence if some one is debating you or your friends.

you use friendships of like minded people as your backup... not evidence.
i see many people like you, the conspiracy nutters on the P&S category are much the same.

EG if you were a court judge, you happily would take here-say statements from friendly people, and ignore any documented evidence from brash people.
you sir, would be the type of person that gets innocent people locked up and turn them vengeful, to then use their anger of wrongful conviction as a reason to never overturn the conviction. 'keep him locked up, he is angry i dont want him in society'
and if you ever did decide to release the innocent. you would blame the brash evidence giver for not being an ass kisser as the reason for the conviction. not your ignorance and personal social preference

oh well, your boring me. if you want to forget ignore that 148/91 happened. thats ignorance is on you.

and blackhatcoiner does not want proof, he just wants me to shut up.
he thinks absence of opposition by removing opposition, then becomes the proof that blackhatcoiner opinion must be true.

no wonder doomad and blackhatcoiner like each other.. they both DONT want evidence. they just want a lack of evidence that disproves their opinion, by trying to shut up anyone providing any evidence.

seems familiar.
like threatening to remove the opposition unless they pander to your mandates. and anyone still not falling inline, you just reject them and not count them... so that all you can then see and count on, are those who agree and have your like minded chain of events. thus you activate your mindset as fact based solely on that game

hmm..
as to rath.
here is the code for LND that shows that channel data is stored not in binary rat blockchain format template. but in variables of keys and values. where 'amount' is saved in millisats

https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/channeldb/channel.go
the first several hundred lines of code are the variables..

and it does NOT just have a simple 'sent to file (raw tx)'
where rawtx is a blockchain formatted transaction template in sat denomination

oh and if in any line of code it says "btcutil.amount", this is not a reference to sats in btc form..
its actually
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcutil/blob/master/amount.go#L13

// AmountUnit describes a method of converting an Amount to something
// other than the base unit of a bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

they just want a lack of evidence that disproves their opinion, by trying to shut up anyone providing any evidence.

This is a lie, I'm not that kind of person. Quote me wherever you think I did this and I can give you a reasonable justification.

he thinks absence of opposition by removing opposition, then becomes the proof that opinion blackhatcoiner must be true.

This doesn't make any sense.

like threatening to remove the opposition unless they pander to your mandates. and anyone still not falling inline, you just reject them and not count them... so that all you can then see and count on, are those who agree and have your like minded chain of events. thus you activate your mindset as fact based solely on that game

Neither this makes sense, you started the nonsense again. I've never threatened anyone if that's what you mean.

[franky1]

proof of threat, proof of wanting someone removed
well
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380036.0

and who made this threat.. ohhh it was you

but i do like your quote of what you deem my abusiveness comes down to

More social drama as he calls it! But it's mostly on his side. That's the funny part!

No, the funny part starts once he comes shortly and insult you for bringing more social drama!

Let's see how many times he's (ab)used those words:

• buzzword: 231 times
• social drama: 353 times
• facepalm: 419 times
• yawn: 52 times

i usually say those things multiple times per post.
but lets be generous and pretend its 1 "abuse" per post and just call it 1055 posts. (its actually far far less)
well i have made 22,000 posts
where by, even at exaggeration of extending some generous stretching, thats only 4% rate. (reality is more like 0.5%(but who's actually counting))

but if those words are so abusive in comparison to 'autustic, liar, troll, angry man, mental case, ban him"
then its probably worth you realising, that im not the harshest abuser. and you picked the wrong bear to poke.

and if you think im more abusive than you, then please show me where i have demanded you be banned

heck ill be generous, and admit a word i have highly over used and deemed as abusive

fangirl: 39
oh and some context, i have been talking about a certain group of like minded people since 2015
16,000 posts ago. yet 39 of 16000 is 0.24% abuse rate

but hey lets be generous lets post count from the date i first used "fangirl"
5840 posts ago (2019) is still only 0.66%

so if you want to pretend im abusive in every post, or abusive in majority of posts.. please do try harder

now how many times has blackhatcoiner "abused" the word wrong:203

now how many times has Doomad "abused" the words
wrong:507
ignore:114
troll:100
lie:75

[DooMAD]

*avoiding the point*

We're going round in circles.  Let's pretend that you somehow managed to convince us to accept your version of events and, by some miracle, we all decided to accept your assertion that:

• softforks = immoral
• activation dates = immoral

(I don't accept that, clearly) But what is the next step in your plan here?  

There have been 11 pages in this topic (and countless pages in others) and we're still no closer to establishing what it is you actually want.  

What are any of us supposed to do about it?  What actions can be taken?  There isn't a single person on this entire planet who can promise you that the stuff you're moaning about won't happen again.  None of us have that kind of power (and that's a good thing).  I am 100% convinced that what you are asking for is not remotely feasible.  

Say, for example, you somehow managed to convince every single current developer to agree never to code another softfork or another arbitrary activation date ever again (which isn't realistic, but let's pretend).  What is to stop any of those developers from changing their mind later?  What about new developers who haven't agreed to those terms?  

No human being on planet Earth can stop someone from creating code in an open-source environment.  Ergo, what you are asking for is impossible in Bitcoin.  Either prove that it is possible, or kindly give up.

[franky1]

point is. that people should be aware of actual events and the risks that come with things.
i know your "a pretend it didnt happen and shut anyone up that wants to discuss it" type of person
i know your a "deny it happened and argue with people that want to discuss it" person

but how about you stop contradicting yourself to cause debate and stop calling people a liar because they say something that goes against your view.

basically, LEARN actual events, and then be consistent in your memory of those events
in short.. stop the contradictory social drama of trying to hide discussions about risks and issues people want to discuss/know.

by making people aware. makes people risk aware if these things are attempted again.
by you wanting to hide the risk, deny the risk, you want people to aimlessly let the risk happen again.. which is not a good or helpful thing on your part.

EG LN: making people aware of the pegged asset, and the payment systems different denominated token, and how the payment system can allow unpegged tokens.. is making people aware of how the 19th century bank system moved away from the gold standard.

EG consensus: making people aware of a mandated activation done via opposition rejection pre-activation to fake 100% for activation. shows that devs could repeat the same thing again if they ever wanted to break a rule that should not be broke

[BlackHatCoiner]

Okay, that's it. I can't continue this further. I don't make any sense and I can't stand the mood of the discussion with this unwholesome person. There's no discussion at all, it's just franky spitting nonsense perpetually trying to psychologically project himself.

This thread is pointless. Neither we nor he will accomplish anything.

[DooMAD]

devs could repeat the same thing again if they ever wanted to break a rule that should not be broke

But only if those securing the chain run the code to change that rule.  And yes, I know you won't acknowledge that part, given your past comments that you think all users are "sheep" and just blindly follow, but okay, whatever.

Consider us sufficiently "aware", even if we're still not in agreement about your interpretation of events or morality in general.  I acknowledge that softforks have the potential to be controversial, however, I maintain that they are permitted and, provided they find sufficient support levels, they absolutely can happen.  Neither I, you nor anyone else can change that.

Are we done?

[franky1]

i know you want to let the devs of core just change things as they please..
i know deep down that you know that they have done it even without users needing to upgrade to vote.

so why play games of denial acting like upgrades cant now happen unless everyone runs the software
again you deny the existence of the backward compatibility that ensured those not upgrading didnt count at the protocol
validation level.
(debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to)
and the block rejection of non voters ensured the opposition pools didnt count at the block level.
(debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to)

so why keep saying that things can only upgrade if majority vote for it.
consenus should be. if there are 10 pools the vote should be 9/10. but what actually happened. before pools even downloaded the actual software to even make segwit formatted blocks. pools using legacy code. had to (by threat) just flag a bit in a header. or have their legacy block rejected

EG if 7/10 pools vote yes. it wont activate. so the bips used would reject the 3 opposition to then have a 7/7. before then activating

you are pretending there was no threat, when deep down you know that the new trick is to just reject the opposers, and slip a stripped block to the abstainers.

seems you just want to pretend that everything should only work the way core want it. with a FAKE pretence that users should just take the centralised point of failure as a feature. and that core should continue as they please

[DooMAD]

Guess we're not done.    

i know you want to let the devs of core just change things as they please..

No.  Not just the core devs.  Any devs can change code.  And what I "want" is irrelevant.  I'm not telling you what I want, I'm telling you how it is.  Facts of life.  Neither my desires nor yours count for anything.  This is simply how it works.  I'll repeat again:

No human being on planet Earth can stop someone from creating code in an open-source environment.  Ergo, what you are asking for is impossible in Bitcoin.  Either prove that it is possible, or kindly give up.

You know what I'm saying is accurate.  Don't go twisting my words to deflect from the part where you don't have an answer.  

so why play games of denial acting like upgrades cant now happen unless everyone runs the software

Unless enough people run the software.  Again, please stop with the needless hyperbole and distorting what I have said.

again you deny the existence of the backward compatibility that ensured those not upgrading didnt count at the protocol
validation level.

I don't deny their existence.  You are yet again misrepresenting my words.  And again, it still required enough of the people securing the chain to run code to make it happen.

(debunking your 'those securing the chain run the code to change that rule' - no they didnt need to)

You haven't debunked anything, they did need to run code to change the rule.  Do I really have to say "BIP91 bit 4 flag" again?

//EDIT:

your word games of "no one can change the code" and "anyone can change the code" are contradictions. done so purely to avoid mentioning the actual events that actually happen

For that to be my word game, you would first have to provide evidence that I've said "no one can change the code".  Otherwise you're being dishonest again.  And I have already described events as they happened.  I'm not repeating myself again.

are you now denying 148/91 happened or are you accepting 148/91 happened

I'm saying your understanding of what happened is flawed.  You stated:

it was the 148 nodes that rejected blocks which got bip91 to its threshold and beyond which then activated segwit(141)

This is false.  The paltry number of people running the UASF client would have resulted in a minority chain split had BIP91 not superseded BIP148.  BIP91 happened.  BIP148 failed, although the threat of BIP148 did result in the unilateral announcement and subsequent enacting of the BCH fork.  Please get it right going forwards.


//DOUBLE_EDIT:

but seems hasnt took the time to learn a thing.

If all you have to teach is tyranny, it's not surprising no one heeds your "lessons".    

seems this topic is dead. the contradictors want to stick with their contradictions

And the delusional want to stick with their delusions.

Thanks for playing.

[franky1]

your word games of "no one can change the code" and "anyone can change the code" are contradictions. done so purely to avoid mentioning the actual events that actually happen.

i know your contradictions, you have said them for 5 years. now stick to the facts of the actual code and the actual bips. the actual events

are you now denying 148/91 happened or are you accepting 148/91 happened

segwit activated on 24th of august. .. not the 1st
it did not require majority to run segwit on the 1st to trigger the segwit grace period

at that date of august 1st it required legacy node users of pools to just change a bit flag in a header. that is all. or have their blocks rejected. again nothing to do with segwit block template formats causing rejection.

the threat was not of 10,000 nodes rejecting blocks where those nodes are all random users. unable to understand segwit format templates.
the threat was from 50 prominent economic nodes(merchant services, exchanges, pools(NYA)) rejecting blocks without the flag. meaning opposition pools(not flagging) cant then spend their value.

again you forget that its not a opt-in to activate. it was a opt-in or else get your block ignored.
where the block count after then triggered segwits grace period due to lack of opposition.
again witout any pool needing to run segwit code that could create segwit block templates

again it was not a normal system where those who dont upgrade would get forked off purely due to them not understanding accepting a new format after activation.
it was those not showing willingness to allow a new feature to even enter a pre-activation grace period will be forked off.

it didnt require everyone to upgrade. to activate. it just required a flag to say you dont want to be forked, which also was the same flag used to allow segwit to enter its 3 week grace period to activate segwit

ok ill make it simple

1. which version of events happened in 2017
A[ ] mandatory fork(148/91) before aug 24th.. then segwit graceperiod leading to segwit(141) activation on aug 24th
B[ ] segwit graceperiod leading to segwit(141) activation, without 148/91 flag event prior

2. what bip/code required nodes/pools to upgrade software upto august 1st to cause a segwit activation

3. what bip/code required nodes/pools to upgrade software upto august 24th to cause a segwit activation

[Rath_]

you then pretend alice pings the entire network or a central mempool/repo/dns (whatever fantasy variable your have tried to add in) for the rest of the network

you than back down and say another fantasy, that alice magically must connect eventually(facepalm) to some outside node.

Again, about that fantasy....

This specification describes a node discovery mechanism based on the Domain Name System (DNS). Its purpose is twofold:
    Bootstrap: providing the initial node discovery for nodes that have no known contacts in the network

I also run my own node and I can see that some random nodes connect to me from time to time. You know what? Let's leave this topic. You're being ignorant just like with HTLC signatures in the HLTC outputs of commitment transactions.

thank you for agreeing that channels can be made private/publicly at a whim any time..
(after your multiple post saying its not)
thank you for agreeing that alice cant send to carol. but eric-diana-carol can send bob or to alice when bob goes private

Private channels are channels that have never been announced to the network. Disabling a channel does not make it private. All nodes still have that channel on their map, but they know that they can't temporarily use it for their payment.

there is absolutely nothing FORCING bob to submit to alices request, when she asks for a list of channels.
there is nothing FORCING bob to have to list all channels.

That's possible. However:

Even if Bob doesn't send "channel_announcement" and then "channel_update" to Alice, she will eventually learn about it from other Lightning nodes as you assume that Diana knows about that channel all the time.

but there are hundreds of messages.. heck even the simple ping/pong messages can include updates to the fee's cltv's and such.

Even the ping/pong messages? Are you sure that we are looking at the same specifications? You might as well put a picture of your cat inside of your "ping" message, but the recipient won't know how to handle it correctly as it's non-standard.

i think i now see how you got your 70% fail rate. [...]
i really am starting to understand your 70% fail rate now. seems you have been coding in some stuff that doesnt use logic or checks.

If you actually looked at my logs and posts, you would know that my payments failed either at some further point in the route or due to no liquidity in my second channel.

It should take a couple of minutes for the message to propagate across the whole network. Alice should receive it fairly quickly as she's just a few hops away.

if you really think that all channel updates result in keeping an map tree uptodate, you are thinking of spam.

Imagine that B, C, D, E updated the parameters of their channels and didn't broadcast the changes as "it's spam". Alice would have to query every single one of them to be able to send the payment. By the way, how would Alice know that all of her information is out-of-date? Asking each hop individually would consume a lot of time.

If the payment fails due to outdated "channel_update", "update_fail_htlc/update_fail_malformed_htlc" can actually return an error message along with the latest "channel_update". Still, the payment would fail 4 times in the above scenario.

and yes nodes do want to change things like cltv and fee to add obfuscation per payment even with out publicly announcing it everywhere..

I don't think that any implementation behaves this way as it would complicate routing a few different payments at the same time. The sender can actually obfuscate both.

CLTV:

If a route is computed by simply routing to the intended recipient and summing the cltv_expiry_deltas, then it's possible for intermediate nodes to guess their position in the route. Knowing the CLTV of the HTLC, the surrounding network topology, and the cltv_expiry_deltas gives an attacker a way to guess the intended recipient. Therefore, it's highly desirable to add a random offset to the CLTV that the intended recipient will receive, which bumps all CLTVs along the route.

Fees:

In the "onion_routing_packet", the sender can intentionally set "amt_to_forward" to a lower value. As a result, the fee paid would be bigger than the one that can be calculated from publicly known parameters.

[franky1]

seeing as you want to limit yourself to a DNS uptopia and a 3 messages scenary of network wide channel update, and the only in channel partner private message share of update htlc and commitment signed.
but let me just show you a few things outside of your box.

the ping pong message:
first you claim that unknown message types are just rejected, yet
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#lightning-message-format

The type field indicates how to interpret the payload field. The format for each individual type is defined by a specification in this repository. The type follows the it's ok to be odd rule, so nodes MAY send odd-numbered types without ascertaining that the recipient understands it.

then you thinking ping pong is useless for anything but poking a node to wake up
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#rationale-4

The largest possible message is 65535 bytes; thus, the maximum sensible byteslen is 65531 — in order to account for the type field (pong) and the byteslen itself. This allows a convenient cutoff for num_pong_bytes to indicate that no reply should be sent.

Connections between nodes within the network may be long lived, as payment channels have an indefinite lifetime. However, it's likely that no new data will be exchanged for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime. Also, on several platforms it's possible that Lightning clients will be put to sleep without prior warning. Hence, a distinct ping message is used, in order to probe for the liveness of the connection on the other side, as well as to keep the established connection active.
..

Finally, the usage of periodic ping messages serves to promote frequent key rotations as specified within BOLT #8.

hmm. and maybe you can take some time to wonder what other things you can put in the 65kb allowance of a ping message apart from ping:"awake?"  pong:"yes"/"no" (human translation)

Within the received ping message, the sender will specify the number of bytes to be included within the data payload of the pong message.

hmm payload data. i know your not thinking what im thinking. but take some time, it might dawn on you what im hinting..
some hints. another name for payload is TLV. and guess what TLV im thinking of.

because 'ping' messages only go direct to peers its connected with (and not some network wide 'internet' of nodes connected to everyone). you might see that your thoughts of 'spamming' the network. is a little out of place.
ping and pong is direct messaging between connected peers and not a network wide spam. where ping and pong can be used to send a payload of hundreds of TVL(types) of messages

but it appears in your philosophy of your understanding of the network there is no privacy. in your eyes any SEC or law enforcement department can just sniff a DNS and see all nodes using LN and send them cease and desist requests if they are not registered money transmitters.

so in your philosophy you feel the only privacy is the payment.. and the only way to hide a channel is via tor(facepalm), just t hide a channels IP.. its kind of a shame that you want to break your own PR campaign niche features just to make a narrative to fit your personal philosophy.

heck i did laugh that you think even if channel partners set their channel to private, the channel is still getting listed on some DNS.. ill quote that just for giggles

Private channels are channels that have never been announced to the network. Disabling a channel does not make it private. All nodes still have that channel on their map, but they know that they can't temporarily use it for their payment.

first, im guessing you didnt read the bolt about pruning the map(i call it cutting off branches of the tree)


its funny because not only are you trying to make a narrative that its all public, al channels, all nodes, always listed unless channel close is announced formally..
but you also contradicted yourself before even making your narrative by your own admission that "private channels are channels that have never been announced to the network".. i guess the DNS philosophy must be psychic then.. having the listing without it ever being announced. amazing. much like your make a payment without sniffing the route or knowing whats available on the route.
yea, seems like utopia best-case guess and exaggeration of psychic understanding of the network without sniffing the network is your narrative.(YOUR philosophy of not needing to ping to see if route is all active, just sign a commitment and wait for fail to learn(facepalm))

where as reality is more like nodes only know about their map(tree branches) of the peers within their tree. and only get announced updates when a node wants to announce. and that ping and pong messages can happen inbetween such formal announcements to test a peer is still active and also to arrange regular key changes and updates of fee's

..
but your philosophy of only relying on network wide(facepalm) formal announcements could leave your map outdated
https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/01-messaging.md#rationale-4

Connections between nodes within the network may be long lived, as payment channels have an indefinite lifetime. However, it's likely that no new data will be exchanged for a significant portion of a connection's lifetime.

oh and yea, i know you think that the messages of amount, fee, cltv are only handled in htlc updates(your 3 message type limit box). but take some time about the thoughts of ping-pong payloads and their ability to have TLV's (payloads) of hundreds of types..

P.S
and my hints are not of anything new, its stuff i have already said. but things you have failed to have "make the connection with"(pun intended) yet

[Wind_FURY]

Okay, that's it. I can't continue this further. I don't make any sense and I can't stand the mood of the discussion with this unwholesome person. There's no discussion at all, it's just franky spitting nonsense perpetually trying to psychologically project himself.

This thread is pointless. Neither we nor he will accomplish anything.

Hahaha! I told you. I know franky1, I had the best learning experiences about Bitcoin from him and jonald_fyookball, the hard way. Everything, from being convinced that big blocks will scale Bitcoin, to debating about offchain layers.

It’s better to post the truth, then ignore the trolls. You will not sound like franky1. Why? Because you’re neither gaslighting people, nor spreading disinformation.

I’ll post it again.

The coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS, not IOUs.

[franky1]

The coins in channels are signed transactions that have not been broadcasted and included in the blockchain yet. No one in Lightning is sending something worthless in the network. They are literally BITCOINS, not IOUs.

and its people like these that make it obviously clear that what they learned from doomad and their group has alot of errors of thought and research.

windfury has had years to learn. but seems hasnt took the time to learn a thing.

seems this topic is dead. the contradictors want to stick with their contradictions

[BlackHatCoiner]

I just want to remind the people of this thread that the following:

If we accept your premise that larger blocks offer more utility, then you should have no problem explaining why everyone hasn't switched to BCH.  It's everything you claim Bitcoin should be.  They are doing everything you want us to do.  Why should we copy their approach when it isn't working for them? 

I take the stance that having a choice between on-chain and off-chain unequivocally offers more utility versus not having that choice.  That's common sense.  I would also posit that if off-chain transactions didn't offer more utility, people wouldn't be using them.  But they are.  People find this technology useful.  More useful than larger blocks.  Acknowledge this fact.  Learn to accept it.

Is answered by:

they dont care about bitcoin. they dont care about:
maintaining the bitcoin network with archive nodes. they are prune node lovers
reasonable fee's per transaction, they want fee's to be high per transaction.
helping the network keep the difficulty difficult to attack
more tranasction onchain to keep the individual fee per transaction cost down

they want those running LN 'full nodes' to prune the blockchain after IBD and pretend they are supporting the bitcoin network even when they are not.

they want to convince people that bitcoin cant scale

they want to convince people that LN is the only option to spend their wealth on retail products and items

completely shameful these fangirls are. all they care about is steering people away from bitcoin and the btc asset, just so they as LN hubs(banks) can take the btc off people at settlement and swap it for altcoins.

the only reason why these fangirls think they have a valid mindset for their actions is the same dozen groupies merit each other to pat each other on the back.. which is a form of cabin fever, and 'special boys club' mentality.

No comments...

[franky1]

many people want to hold exchange MySQL balance and trade tokens on MySQL databases thinking they are 'owning bitcoin' but they dont care about maintaining the network, nor care about the 'not my keys, not my coin' stuff, heck they dont even know or care that what they are trading is a different token and not a blockchain confirmed(settled) transaction

same goes for LN.. people using a phone app to buy chewing gum. they dont care about being full nodes(validation AND archiving) they just want to have an account which allows them to move value. no matter the format of the value. and not really think about the security lacking in using such 'easy/fast' option.
yep no one is going to carry around a laptop and sync the blockchain just to validate a channel is real(still open) when just wanting to buy a coffee on an offchain. they will just 'trust' that everything is fine and hope the partner is amicable and honest.

bitcoin does not need to leap to the propagandised 100mb blocks to meet offchain demand. because offchain demand is no where near it. bitcoin however should not be hindered, restricted, stagnated to prevent some scaling (incremental) increases of transaction count possibilities. but that hindering so far has not been based on some technical reason that would break bitcoin. but on political reason to promote other networks as solutions. .. the old 'blockchains are broke use non blockchain solutions' lame advert

there are many reasons people dont choose BCH. such as its technical team(lack of), its not having a wide array of merchant acceptance. and even is lack of fundamental value.

the funny thing is that getting people away from using the bitcoin network and into using altnets or custodian served litewallet apps is going to cause more people to drop from being bitcoin network maintainers(full nodes(validate and archive)). far more so than the 1990's hardware propaganda reasons.

you can spot these people wanting less bitcoin network maintainers, not only do they promote altnets as utopia and bitcoin as broke. but also they try to tell bitcoin maintainers(full nodes(validate and archive)) that the 'archive' part is redundant(facepalm), even go as far as saying that upgrading to remain validation completeness is redundant, 'coz backward compatibility'(facepalm).. yet the fail to convey the actual security and feature of why full validation and archiving is important backbone to the network. and fail to explain how UN-upgraded nodes are not true full nodes as they are handed stripped data and put on a lesser level, but deceived as being told they are 'full nodes' even when not using their deceptive methods of understating what "backward compatibility" actually results in and what pruned actually lessens the features available of.

[BlackHatCoiner]

same goes for LN people using a phone app to buy chewing gum. they dont care about being full nodes(validation AND archiving)

I don't know what's favoring them, but I'm sure they want their chewing gums. They will use what satisfies this need. They could be using PayPal instead or some other payment processor, but they choose to use a cryptocurrency 'cause it comes with benefits. However, they're more attracted by PayPal, because it's faster than the on-chain transactions.

These people won't change by increasing the block size. The vast majority don't even run a node. They're probably satisfied by SPV solutions.

the funny thing is that getting people away from using the bitcoin network and into using altnets or custodian served litewallet apps is going to cause more people to drop from being bitcoin network maintainers. far more so than the 1990's hardware propaganda reasons

What to do franky? Global adoption brings defects. What matters to me is that you, now, can verify everything. You're not obligated to trust someone. There's another option. Sure, it's tough to handle and sure, trusting hubs has its easiness and comfort including some disadvantages, but there is another option that did not exist before. You don't like trusting hubs? Use Bitcoin without trusting hubs! You don't like LN? Make only on-chain transactions! The fact that some users are satisfied by these inventions means that it's useful to them and you ought to respect it.

Whether people use hubs or not; whether they like exchanging using third parties or not: Trust is no more mandatory.

[franky1]

then stop with the adverts that bitcoin is broke and the solution everyone should use is LN

atleast tweak your adverts to be an 'option'(niche usecase) instead of pretending its the default end goal for everyones daily utility.

EG if your saying 'bitcoin doesnt need to scale because LN is here' is more so an advert saying people should stop wanting to use bitcoin often and use an altnet instead.

its not an advert saying people can choose. its more like 'heres the exit, the only way to go'

..
also when it comes to these 'hubs' and channel partners.. explain the disadvantages and limits. stop trying to utopianise offchain niche services

[BlackHatCoiner]

then stop with the adverts that bitcoin is broke and the solution everyone should use is LN

No, I won't, 'cause Bitcoin does not satisfy my needs when I want to make micro-transactions. And I'll continue supporting it and spreading its utility, otherwise merchants will not adopt it.

atleast tweak your adverts to be an 'option' instead of pretending its the default end goal for everyones daily utility.

When did I say that it must be the default end goal? This is just you misinterpreting everyone.