$75mill... thats small

the UK 'creates' wll over £90mill every year, and thats just the government 'loan' let alone the commercial banks activities

meet ups i have attended included things like:
hand-to hand trading desk
presentation stage - technologies/innovations/code (no investment talk allowed)
recruiters
general chat with like minded people
product sales stands

its best to try finding out their ethos/agenda for the meets, and avoid the ons trying to 'seek investment'/offer investment ideas

and yet core are the censors....
just look at how many bips and idea's they have censored
just look at how many dev teams they threw out the community

you have certainly drunk the core koolaid

when it comes to wanting to edit or change a certain piece of data by multiple users, then yes alternatives exist. but when it comes to needing to retain a secure copy of data that cannot be edited then thats where blockchains strengths are.

like bank transfers and retaining bank statements for years
parcel/goods delivery which can trace back to source (food distribution industry love this)
car manufacturing/maintenance logs
hospital records
education/student grades
land ownership authorities
property management/repair
intellectual property authorities
insurance
.. the list goes on

im not saying everyone has to convert to blockchain, as thats stupid. but many in this topic are acting as if blockchains are useless and impractical for any use.

blockchain is a database... what businesses need to ask is what,why how,who accesses it.
you have been very open to your subtle hints that you hate blockchain and you think people need to move off blockchains to either LN or liquid for btc, as well as saying blockchains wont work for other uses in different sectors. but you really need to, and i mean this sincerely, really need to do some dang research.

i understand you have limited technical knowledge, i understand your learning from a certain group of people with certain intentions. but it really is time you done some out of the box thinking.

imagine a central database, and then needing to back it up periodically. and because its central. have IT guys, auditors, security professionals monitoring the central server to ensure tampering dos not occur.

imagine a distributed database, which by its own design backs up each other (if one goes down others are available) where by design individuals cant tamper with it, it doesnt ned it, security, auditors either.

try not to think about BTC usecase. and think about blockchain as a separate technology.

the only part i laugh about the topics creators link. is that its all managed on microsoft servers. where as true blockchains are where the separate nodes are the 'servers' thus no need for microsoft as a manager, and instead just as a software developer

you seem to forget the past.
there are many examples of bugs in an implementation, where if everyone was using the same software the network would crash. and now core have vetoed out other teams by treating them as enemies everytime they disagree with core, not only makes core too tyranical by evading other options, but also if everyone was using just core and core had a bug. the network is screwed.

but i do like the way you worded your reply. where you cant imagine "any open source project where less dominant implementations dont follow the main implementation"

there should not be a main implementation, no dominance, no need to be a 'follower'.. it should be an open community project. but hey, people dont believe in self control or open choice no more and just want to trust a certain organisation.. which is the flaw people forget when trying to understand the purpose of this industry

i think a few people trying to narrow a blockchain definition to bitcoin by saying people need to research bitcoin to understand blockchains.. has no clue.

blockchains dont need to be decentralised.
blockchains dont even need to hold financial data.
blockchains dont even need a financial incentive to stay engaged.
the security of blockchains is about data distribution. not decentralisation.
this means companies can have their own internal blockchain just for their company use.
this is because they may not want one single employee to have ability to change data.

the purpose of a blockchain is about secure distributed data.
imagine a bank, where each local town bank office branch was a node. together they work as a network without worrying about a central server. no need for a HQ with auditors, IT guys. if one node goes down, another is sent through the post.
and again about the auditing, it becomes self auditing and trusted, transparent data.
these days for work/home/tax reasons people like to have access to bank statements for upto 6 years, so retaining data securely is better done by distributing it, rather than one central server.

a few people dont also understand, due to lack of thinking outside the bitcoin box. that a blockchain does not need to be a single chain.
again imagine banks. but in each state(region) is their own chain and then ontop of that is a master chain that holds each regions block id hash. this way a node does not have to store an entire countries data, but just its own region. and still able to verify all the blocks locally are correct, and that other regions are correct too.

the flaw of blockchains even though the data is distributed, is who designs the software that manages the data. as thats the part where people worry about bad actors taking control.

in a open world utility its best to have multiple developers and differing full node software to keep each other in check. but private blockchains that only benefit the organisation using it. their own distribution can be sufficient

ofcourse there is 100% risk of the company keeping a copy of the private keys. but do you know whats also a risk?
the private key being so easy to find on the same 'device' as the public key.

imagine a credit card which you marker pen your pin number to. see the stupidity of that action when someone pickpockets your credit card.

a good hardware wallet is not where the private key is stored with the public key. especially if all is required is a fingernail scratch to reveal it.

also the card seems expensive for something that only has one address
such a high price for something that means as soon as you want to spend just some of the funds it becomes useless.

and if i was to knit pick even more. im still laughing at the very old adoption of the word 'wallet'. when all the thing does is store keys(thus should be defined as a keyring).. and more specifically this card should be defined as a vault or something else that describes a single use item

a few people above seem noobish about ETF regulation in regards to bitcoin.
here is a big hint. ETF regulation does not touch bitcoin.(though other regulations might)

lts put it another way,
commodities such as the fruit orange, no financial regulation has control to stop a farmer growing oranges. picking oranges or selling oranges.
if a company (international distributors) buys up containers full of oranges and form them into commodities. then thats between the company and the financial regulations.. not the farmer.
the financial regulators make sure the company is buying what it said its buying to then allow the company to legitimately offer options for customers to buy/trade commodities(not th actual oranges, as thats separate)

farmers are not worried about the sec, farmers only have to worry about pesticides and what not

so those mining and buying real bitcoin and not interested in ETF wont see any hurdles in regards to ETF regulation.
those trading or buying ETF shares wont own/touch the bitcoins of the companies etf

...
separate point. someone believes bakkt is a etf.. its not. an etf is assets owned by a company in their own right and those coins have to be held.
what people seem to get confused with is the same company offering a completely different service which is when a ETF contract expires. instead of the company handing out fiat back to the customer the company on behalf of the customer transfers the fiat to an exchange and buys btc separetly to then give to the customer.

btc does not jump in and out of the ETF at the whim of customers..
again the customer if a etf offers withdrawal of btc, its not using the ETF stash, but a side service that buys btc for that customer from an exchange using the customers funds

the word "custodian" keeps popping up in this topic. and it makes me laugh

custodian is someone put in to look after something/someone. but doesnt own the property.
a school custodian is just the maintenance man
a police custodian just checks the arrested suspects dont escape and dont harm themselves or others
but does not own the person/asset.

in an ETF the company buys the bitcoins and its the companies property. they are not custodians. they are businesses with assets / collateral.
what ETF customers are buying are shares. they are not buying real bitcoins, just common stock shares

if WindFury was trying his hardest to get to a point. it would be worded more like
does offering common shares to the fiat financial industry to allow them to bet on the bitcoin price legitimately have more benefits than the risks of majority ownership of the circulation of bitcoin being owned by corporations.

bitcoinFX..
an ETF is not somthing people use to own bitcoins. just like going to a betting shop is not somewhere people go to own a horse/greyhound

an ETF/betting shop is just used for people to buy a certificate that says thy put certain value in. and then bet on the results of the movements of the other thing they do not own and never did.


however those buying bitcoin via proper bitcoin buying means. can buy bitcoin and own bitcoin. but an ETF is not the tool to own bitcoin. its just a fiat betting/investment tool based on the results of bitcoins price movements

bitcoin is not a commodity
  - a commodity is a raw material used to create other materials or products. EG gold->jewellery. wheat->bread

bitcoin is not money
  - money is a form of currency offered,controlled, regulated by a countries government

howver currency is anything people deam of value that can be transfered to different owners by their desire to swap for other things of value

bitcoin is an asset currency. and there is nothing wrong with being such.
'money' failed communities, its creation and utility is based on making people get in debt for the money to grow

do not think of bitcoin as a commodity due to the 'bitcoin is like digital gold' phrase, as that phrase is not describing golds commodity features but golds asset features. yes gold sits on 2 markets. so dont get confused

as for those saying that bitcoins value is faith, emotion based. well no. thats the speculative PRICE. not value. bitcoins value is actually its cost of its acquisition.
if it costs a miner $9k to mine 1btc they will not want to sell it for less.
if it costs a buyer $9k to buy 1btc they are not going to want to sell for less

..
money 100 years ago used to be based on the value of the cost of gold. now its based losely on the countrys minimum wage
EG $10 can be seen as an hours labour for most average american states. yet some value $10 less or more

again the bitcoins of an ETF were never the customers. the customers did not buy btc and then give them to a custodian.

a company buys the bitcoin from an exchange/private OTC and its the companies property. fully owned legitimately by the company. they then separately collateralise the holdings, and sell shares.
those buying shares dont own the bitcoin, before during or after.

as for the accounting/auditing. easy. just show the public keys of the companies holdings. anyone can check that the company is holding what it says.
EG if 20 shares is measured as 1btc. and the company has released 2million shares. then the company has to sign a message linkd to a hoard of 100k coins

shhh stop revealing real evidence that pools dont care about fee's.. if people knew that then people will start questioning why devs are saying the fee's need to go up while not scaling bitcoins blockchain(thus ruining onchain utility) and people will start questioning why devs want users to lock funds up into custodial control, which goes against the whole purpose of bitcoins invention.

so please keep it down to a silent whisper or the dev fan girls will troll you to death but not back it up with any research of their own.
[note tone of sarcasm]

an ETF is NOT where you buy bitcoin and put them into a trusted custodian..
an ETF IS where a company buys thier own bitcoins. vaults them up as collateral of the company(assets) and then sell shares of their assets.
customers/investors of ETF's do not own the company nor bitcoins. they own shares that represent an allotment of coins.

the benefits people see is that instead of random people buying small amounts of coins on exchanges(not much movement in price) large ETF's buy large lumps of coins which can move the price.

the disadvantages people see is if the large ETF's dont buy from public exchanges thus not affect the public prices

the benefits of ETF's is that regulated financial industry can invest in ETF's for banking/pension/investment funds where as those same funds cannot really invest in bitcoin direct due to regulatory grey area's

the benefit is that it means bitcoin itself does not get heavily regulated out of the hands of average joe, because the financial sector has their gateway into investments, without directly touching bitcoin, but still reaping some of the benefits of the price movements

find someone that uses face recognition, go to their social media, point camera at their picture and your in.
imagine your face as a password.. then imagine a password tattood to your forehead for anyone to take a pic of and you realise how insecure it is

more likely the exchange moving from hotwallet to cold wallet/vault

well you got $1k extra. so wait for the next dip (drop after a peak) and repeat

never buy on the up, buy on the down and wait for the next rise to sell.

most people try to keep a 50/50 split of both sides, to double chances
EG instead of selling a whole coin at $10k you could have sold half. and then if price goes down you can buy more coin, if price goes up you can sell coin for more fiat. and just keep riding the waves from both sides

either way over 10% profit in one day is more than enough. so dont be so quick to try being greedy. play it smart
take little profits often and repeat. rather than throwing a random guess and hoping for large returns quickly

(facepalm)
thats like having a gun problem, but instead of just removing guns. you run a program to give out foodstamps to anyone that hands in a gun..
sorry but thos that want to kill, will still kill. voluntary options dont work against malicious risks.

again core devs refuse to fix the issue because their interests have become commercialied into wanting to push people off the network and into commercial networks and services.

but hey no one cares about network security or scaling capacity using the true bitcoin technology(blockchain) all that cor fangirls care about is the price. so that one day they can exit back to fiat, leaving bitcoin, weakening bitcoin

if yo only care about the price and dont care about bitcoins blockchain security and capacity.. dont bother replying

why are you brushing bug, issues under the carpet and then dying the carpet pink, then covering it in glitter to make things look prettier than what they are trying to hide?

miners rational, miners care about fee's.. topic creators example alone proves the opposite. (a)1tx (b)no fee..
again core devs are avoiding increasing the base block due to THEIR scare tactics and fearmongering that the network wont cope with propogation due to quadratics risks of larger base block. its them saying 'super computers are needed for full nodes'

but fix the issue, reduce the maxtxsigops to 500 and guess what. suddenly someone cant make a single bloated tx to fill a block., it would require hundreds of transactions to fill a block.. which means instead of 1 chance of being in a block, hundreds of chances by default

the risk of quadratics is real, but instead of fixing it, they are using it as a weapon of fear to say bitcoins blockchain cannot cope with scaling. just so they can sell they community onto the idea of using other networks