Quote from: franky1 on Today at 04:48:03 AM

and of that bloated paragraph all i seen is you want people to avoid bitcoin and instead play on other systems.. doesnt sound like bitcoin adoption to me sounds like bitcoin off-boarding, bitcoin avoidance, bitcoin rejection

You can interpret my words however you like. I doubt that I am saying anything too controversial in terms of working with lightning network and potentially other second and/or third layers, and if there are various solutions that make onchain transactions more affordable, I am not opposed to that either - even though individuals should also be made aware that if they have a bunch of onchain transactions that might vary between a few dollars and maybe even less than $100, then they may well end up getting into situations that it is not very economical to be spending those UTXOs... or they end up getting surprised by fees if they are trying to send $5k, and someone tells them that they just sent $5k and it only cost them $10, but then if the persoin with a bunch of small UTXOs goes to spend $5k, they end up having to spend 100x more (which would be $1k) because they were combining more than 100 UTXOs.. Those are not comfortable situations, and could be quite shocking to some folks who might have had thought that they were building their BTC wealth $5-$10 at a time for many years, and then they find out that they don't have very much wealth at all unless the fees go down or there might be some other way that they are able to consolidate their UTXOs with low fees..

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 04:48:03 AM

just remember to ask yourself if you are not owning funds on your key.. WHO IS?

I don't need to remember that, because I already realize the trade offs to third party custody, so fuck off with your patronizing way of covering the same topic that I already covered.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 04:48:03 AM

then realise those teaching you that pushing people into other systems sound good.. are the ones that want to own the coins whilst passing off other system balance to people.. knowing those people wont be able to claim bitcoin thus spend down the crap balance to zero and the centralised entity keeps the actual bitcoin

More patronizing, yet I will still point out that I am not advocating custodial solutions, even though sometimes custodial solutions might be the best way to transact using bitcoin, or maybe the least of the worst options.

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 04:48:03 AM

anyways
there are a multitude of ways to get bitcoin fee's down and tx counts up ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK. here ill mention a few

a. a fee formulae that only penalises spammers and bloaters where their formulae score for priority makes them pay more to be accepted into a block and where leaner users not spending hourly get to use cheap base rates that are not multiplied

b. leaner transactions to allow more transactions per block so individually each user pays less whilst more tx per block means pools get nice totals
b1. close the exploits that allow 1tx to take up 4mb
b2. new tx formats that are even shorter(leaner) than standard transactions (yep its possible)

There could be some variation of these proposals that could work, yet it still seems to need to have code and/or to be adopted.. .

Quote from: franky1 on Today at 04:48:03 AM

c. uncludge the current 4mb format to not be a 1mb wall and 3mb witness wall. and instead a united 4mb space for better tx count utility
d. then scale blocks to allow even more transactions. so that more users can transact reasonably without being provoked to pay more due to stupid exploits, and bad economic policy made by dev politics that favour off boarding bitcoiners off the network

I doubt that very many folks are interested in the increasing the block size arguments, even though sure there could be some circumstances in which some block size increases might become feasible.. maybe?

Quote from: cryptosize on Today at 06:56:34 PM

If I had it my way, I would double the block size with every halving.

Sounds like a bad idea.. first there is no strong evidence (facts or logic) to convincingly proclaim that the current system is actually broken and/or that block size increases would resolve the problem without potentially causing more worse problems than it solved, presuming that there is a problem that even needs to be solved..

Quote from: cryptosize on Today at 06:56:34 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on Today at 03:50:51 AM

perhaps even really poor people in the $1 per day category might also be using bitcoin on second or third layers and maybe not even knowing it.

I truly believe that (billions of Android users don't even know they actually use Linux), but I'm concerned about self-custody.

There is a tricky/delicate balance between freedom and user-friendliness...

I am not promoting 3rd party custodians, but there still be some cases in which they are helpful and they are likely not going to completely disappear, so maybe the more important questions would revolve around whether there is enough people to continue to use various self-custodial options and also to have self-custodial continuing to be developed that it will continue to inspire people to strive towards self-custodial when they are able to .. and maybe self-custodial will ONLY be for people who have a certain level of wealth.. whether that is $500, $5k, $50k or maybe some higher number?. not sure if self-custodial would only be for millionaires as blackhatcoiner suggest to be a potential problem.. yet I will also stand by my previous expectations that bitcoin still brings a lot of improvements in terms of an honest ledger - even though some folks might not be directly using it.. they would still be indirectly benefiting by such more honest money.