Alright 😂

Note my usage of the word "usually".

I am not denying that Lightning is ultimately enforced on-chain. But an HTLC is usually not recorded in the chain. Only the final state of the channel once it's closed. Hence why I called it "off-chain". But I really don't care what you want to call it. This seems like a pointless discussion to me.

If you say "offchain" it means you take them out from the Bitcoin chain and put them on another chain.

It seems our definition of "offchain" differs, leading to this misunderstanding.

Matter of perspective.

Where am I wrong?

Is even so wrong to see people using the term "offchain" when they refer to a LN payment.
HTLC

In an ideal situation the HTLC never hits the chain, making the term "offchain" perfectly applicable IMO.

It says "on-chain" in the title though.

What's the purpose of this when the actual LLM isn't running on the ESP32 anyway?

The backup transaction(s) are not financial transactions, since they do not move any monetary value. They are only used to store data, that could have been stored externally.

Please don't push the responsibility of storing YOUR backup onto OTHER node runners.

The 1mb (or 4 with witness) is well bounded and neat and has no issues with resources.

Yeah it is bounded per block. But the blockchain grows forever. That isn't bounded. And having a growth rate that's just slightly higher per block, does add up significantly over time. Keep in mind that a full node needs to download the entire chain. This gets harder and harder with time.

I really hope it stays that way once fees ramp up and we don't get yet another one of these spam hype cycles. But I am afraid that the spam hype might come back.

UNLESS monetary transactions outbid spam.

Which is kinda hard when inscriptions have a 75% discount.

How did that happen?

( blocks are limited to 1mb, utxo set has no limit. )

Blocks are limited to 4 MB.

tldr utreexo solves the more serious problem.

Agreed.
Though that doesn't make big spam-filled blocks any better.

My bad, I meant an archival node, which can bootstrap other full nodes.

what is the difference between utxo set bloat and blockchain bloat?

There is no difference.

Of course there is a difference. The UTXO set are all of the unspent outputs, against which new transactions are verified. The blockchain is the entire history of transactions up until now. If you want to run a full node, you have to store the entire blockchain. You don't however need to store the entire UTXO set with UTreeXO, only the outputs that you own.

uteeexo is the most important thing happening in bitcoin right now.

UTreeXO fixes UTXO set bloat. But it doesn't fix blockchain bloat from inscriptions.

But how do we balance that with Bitcoin’s neutrality?
Where’s the line between protecting the protocol and restricting usage?

Data storage was always considered an abuse of Bitcoin.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Spam_transactions
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Illegal_content_in_the_block_chain
https://gnusha.org/pi/bitcoindev/CAAS2fgSkiqfhJxHJNw8i8G5yd1XY6tUTDynQ+AekbwmHP_jZmw@mail.gmail.com/t/#u

This would not be compatible with silent payments.

Yes, I have used FixedFloat multiple times in the past. Just make sure that your Lightning invoice doesn't expire before the swap completes.