so now you admit you want to change the code

dynamic blocksize is pure BSVism

lightning uses a form of routing that never really got anywhere but the reason why we don't have better is because you can't, with current cryptography, make HTLCs that can be sent to anyone but the channel they are made for

that's the reason why we have lightning and it uses source routing

i don't think the cryptographic technique exists yet, or at best, it maybe has been discovered in the last few years but nobody's put the two things together

it's a very instructive exercise to study the whole history of "hash functions"

all this AI?

hash functions

elliptic curve signatures?

yes, hash functions are at the centre

hash functions are a way of transforming data in a way that it relates to ... or doesn't relate to the thing you are looking for

AIs use a special type of hash function and a form of hamming distance calculation based on it that generates a proximity between two large blobs of data

it's mindbogglingly complex, and this still doesn't give you the ability to do lightning-like state channels to modify standing UTXOs that are not yet dispatched to the mempool 

 This was written with ai?
Admit…Saying that it’s already happened & there’s no going back from that…yes.
Dynamic blocksize was only mentioned due to xmr not needing LN.
Still not a bsver. 

 it's pretty sad that you all are so busy tapping away with two fingers that you don't know that some people can touch type and not only that, they have got fancy keyboards that let them type over 100wpm

it gets really irritating because you all can't be bothered reading anyway and i can type so fast and yet nobody's reading it

good thing i find it useful for writing code

and also, still a fluffy bunny sucker

that fucker is CIA, and he must be loving his little flock of obedient followers 

 It Twas only a question was not an accusation.
Please write some good code & hopefully we get to use it.
CSW CIA?  

 that never occurred to you? 

 Just never thought he was USA owned asset. 

 i didn't say "no" i said "almost nobody"

just like tor's 3 hops 3 rounds of coinjoining pretty much wipes out any chance of making a positive correlation

blacklisted bitcoin can still be cleaned by applying it to fees because that ends up coinjoined in the mother of coinjoins, called "block fees"

i'm pretty sure that at least part of what the ordinals are doing is washing coins that are close to ones that have been marked

if you are dealing in big enough amounts of bitcoin to attract this kind of attention it is trivial for you to cover the cost of these processes so there's no excuse for getting caught 

 That is a single example. Where do you think seized Bitcoin at government auction comes from? Why is there no government auctions for Monero? Do they have any? I guess we would never know

"just like tor's 3 hops..."
Except that any future mistakes can potentially de-anonymize you. Trading partners can see your balances and trace you. Not only that, but over time any future mistakes from others that participated in your coinjoin rounds reduces your "privacy" and is out of your control. Made evident by people like this paying for a tiny mistake made years later.

You don't seem to understand the problem. Almost no user is going to do all these little optional hoop jumping tricks, spend way more money, and waste time to "wash" their coins.

The best Bitcoin "privacy"-wizard opsec-gymnast has worse privacy than the most retarded Monero user pressing send. And that is a shame.