Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

JJG first admits there is utility annoyance problem with bitcoin.. because he uses the words "solution" (so he identifies there is a problem that needs solutions..)
but notice how he downplays or doesnt use the word solution in regards to onchain upgrade stuff.. but does use the word solution in regards to custodial/ offchain stuff

You are really annoying sometimes, yet maybe that is part of your charm?

You do realize that the concept of problems and solutions can be used in differing kinds of ways and different kinds of levels?

Maybe one of the problems that we might be suggesting is whether fees are high for some people and they might not have options, and so maybe some of the problem for some of these folks might be that they engaged in a bunch of small transactions historically and then a decent number of their UTXOs have become uneconomical to spend.

If some folks are suggesting that the solution to such problem is to either hardfork in such a way that increases the blocksize or that some of the historical software changes, such as segwit or taproot should be removed or reversed, then those kinds of solutions are not without their own controversies including that reversing some things that had already achieved consensus seems quite unlikely.

Another dynamic, in bitcoin, in case that you had not noticed franky, is that it is more difficult to make a change than it is to maintain the status quo, and that's part of the reason that I am suggesting that anyone proposing to have changes made to the base code and the base layer practices, then they have the burden of production (facts) and the burden of persuasion (logic) to both show the problem and to show how their proposed solution(s) is going to fix the problem without causing more problems that might even be worse than the cure. I don't claim to know the answer, so frequently I am attempting to deal with the "is" rather than fantasizing about the "ought," yet sure, there is no problem to describe perceived problems and to propose solutions and to attempt to influence others to agree with your points of view.

I doubt that I am saying anything as controversial as you are working at making it out to be. Yes many of us already know that the empowerment of bitcoin comes through self-custody and the various peer to peer transactions, and even if there are all kinds financial products (including the newly issued ETFs), the reason that those ETFs have value is because of the power of the underlying BTC and not because of various ways that the financial institutions might be holding them for their clients....so yeah there are products that are inferior to bitcoin, but they still allow price exposure, especially with the spot bitcoin ETFs require the various third party ETF providers to hold the underlying BTC in at least the amounts of the shares that they had issued/sold.

There are likely a lot of ways that third parties can carry out practices in which they interfere with direct ownership, but at the same time, there have always been various ways that individuals had engaged third party services, and surely many of us bitcoin HODLers likely considered that a lot of them should have had learned their lessons in 2022 when so many folks lost their coins largely because they were utilizing third party services.. but at the same time, there is a trade off currently, when we have some people who are very poor, and if they are buying $10 of bitcoin at a time, I hardly know how they can do that onchain without causing problems for themselves in the future, and if you are proposing BIG blocks to resolve it, that does not seem to be a tradeoff that is going to fly with a lot ofbitcoiners in order to achieve consensus, for reasons that I largely already discussed.

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

even when the custodial/offchain stuff is the worse choice. he still downplays the onchain upgrade stuff as not solutions and then says people may not want to discuss, have, need to see onchain upgrades..

You are the one proposing the change. NOT me. I personally consider that there are ongoing developments, including that some poor people might need to learn to protect themselves by not moving every $10 transaction/purchase that they make to a private wallet, and sure sometimes we might have $100 to $500 transactions, but if the transactions are voluntary, then I consider it a fair trade off to let the amount in the third party custodial wallet to get between $500 and $1k prior to transferring to a private wallet.

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

then he goes onto say that the only people that self custody onchain for onchain use should be those that have wealth

You are not doing a good job of paraphrasing me. Why not just let my comments speak for themselves rather than you repeating them but then summarizing them badly?

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

(i personally have more bitcoin wealth than JJG

I have ONLY claimed to have more than 0.63 bitcoin, so good for you that you happen to have more than me.

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

but its funny how he wants to shoot himself in the foot by saying people of less wealth shouldnt be using bitcoin onchain..)

I did not say that they shouldn't but instead that under current conditions and also potential future conditions, it may well end up being the case that even fairly large UTXOs of $100s of dollars might become uneconomical during certain periods of time, absent some changes or ways to maybe make them economical. I am not saying that is my wish, but instead I had been suggesting that as individual bitcoin users, we should be attemping to prepare for those kinds of possibilities and hopefully protecting ourselves.

Currently, I don't have too many UTXOs that are less than $500.. but I also sometimes feel uncomfortable sending small transactions to people on chain if there might be concerns that the transactions might not be as spendable in the future, but if any of members of the forum should be experienced enough to be able to manage a $100 or $200 transaction on chain, even though we also may need to be careful when we consider when we might spend those size of UTXOs in the future... I don't know. Maybe it won't be as BIG of a problem as I had been thinking, because another thing that we can do is coin control.

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

i do find it funny how those that are not institutions are speaking as if institutional ownership of coin is best option/least worse option, seems they are not caring about their own bitcoin utility and instead are just spouting some promotion that only benefits institutions and not themselves(unless they are kissing ass hoping for a pay day from such institutions for siding with institutions)

I doubt that I am promoting institutions or third party custodial solutions, even though that could be the better choice in some cases, and I likely don't have enough experience with some other possible solutions, and it is not ONLY me that had some problems with lighting channels getting closed on me.. which I find frustrating.

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

last comment
those with offchain balance on third party database..
those with offchain balance as inbound balance from offchain partner.. is not honest money.. its IOU with no guarantee

I know that you use the term IOU in regards to LN, and that is misleading.

Quote from: cryptosize on Today at 01:35:58 AM

Quote from: franky1 on February 03, 2024, 11:30:06 PM

i personally have more bitcoin wealth than JJG

Source?

Do you know his BTC stash? Or does he know yours?

Franky seems to be just guessing, even though he admits himself as a whale (or at least a whale wannabe - in his fantasy little world)

But we could go by his forum registration date, and so surely it would be possible, just by his forum registration date to have had gotten coins 10x cheaper than my lowest purchase, and even thoughI have a forum registration date that is February 2014, I frequently admit (or claim) that i started buying BTC at or near the top of the 2013 price run.. so surely Frank might have done a decent amount of BTC accumulation prior to that price peak...

but in the end, stash sizes is hardly even very relevant at all to our kind of discussion (as BabyBandit mentioned), except surely I had been suggesting that if a person has a certain number of BTC already accumulated that are being held in private wallets (and maybe even decently-sized UTXOs that are not smaller than $500, even if he might have transferred them when they were way smaller), then those people are going to be more advantaged over those who were making a lot of small UTXOs... but still even my comment is somewhat speculative in terms of just projecting how current fees had gotten and even expecting that transaction fees might get worse without the main chain bitcoin software sufficiently changing...and we cannot presume the mere increase in fees would end up motivating and/or even justifying some kinds of changes that Franky might want such as reversing Segwit/Taproot (that's not likely to happen), or some other BIG blocker kinds of suggestions that also would not be likely absent even longer periods of high fees.

I am happy about any of this either.. including the high fees, and I think the more likely ways that poor people are able to transact in bitcoin is using second/third layers and even custodians.. but that still would not invalidate bitcoin because even some of the various second and third party solutions are still somewhat pegged to bitcoin.. more than what Franky seems to be ongoingly wanting to argue..