Quote from: konfuzius5278 on September 17, 2023, 07:37:44 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on September 17, 2023, 03:56:12 PM

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on September 13, 2023, 01:49:36 PM

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on September 13, 2023, 12:20:44 PM

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on September 12, 2023, 09:22:04 AM

Here is the tweet I finally found it:

https://x.com/nikzh/status/1699980224610385983?s=20

I can't see how it's possible. Node which follow current Bitcoin protocol/consensus would treat block with reward higher than expected as invalid block. I believe someone else can show code of Bitcoin Core (or other full node software) which check whether total of newly mined Bitcoin on a block doesn't exceed current block reward.

As I said I am not talking of main Emmision, that would cause a hard fork. But you put BTC from one adress to another against UTXO consensus with LN.

And Sidechains etc will put their BTC also on a special adress without any UTXO proof of main chain

Confused what you're trying to make everyone believe by making everyone reading that. Don't the coins sent to "special addresses" like Lightning Channels require at least one confirmation in the Bitcoin blockchain?

Where is the check in core code where the closed channel TX come from? There is none, because the core dont know the input TX.

The "check in Core code"? What does that mean? You open a Lightning Channel it requires an onchain transaction, you close the channel it requires another onchain transaction.

Quote

its only new consensus how it is technically working

"New consensus" where? No consensus rule was broken nor changed.