my opinion of his endgame

1. no one cares about bitcoinsv. its going nowhere and wont succeed. no one needs to social drama or care about it. its just an altcoin. so forget about it.

2.bitcoinsv is just CSW's thing he made and he will use as his 'i dont scam i made my money using transparent audited blockchains' in short. all bitcoinsv is for is the subterfuge to hide how CSW is really making money (patent/ponzi scamming)

now lets talk about his scamming
3. the tulip trust is just a text file of public keys that got notarised years ago. thats it. its not a encrypted wallet of privatekeys.
4. he scammed the aussie government out of millions of tax benefits. and then used the fake collateral to scam other private businesses to invest in him.

5. he CANT spend the 'satoshi stash' so now neds to earn funds elsewhere to hope to settle his aussie/private company debts of yesteryear

6. we all know that he is not satoshi. but h does not care about that. by him having a flimsy government database record that shows his name beside and associated to satoshi. he can now cause mischief.

7. even though no copyright has been granted. the registration with his name on it alone can now be used as a scammer tool to send out frivolous C&D letters to people he dont like. again. he dont care or doesnt want to win court cases with proof, thats not the point.

8. his game is to just get people to buy him off to shut up and go away as its cheaper than taking him to court to prove he is a fraud... its how many patent scammers work. they dont have to own a patent. all they want is a quick money grab settlement from someone they C&D.

9. with hopes all the scamming and ponzi things he does will pay off his old legal disputes and pretend the money is clean by saying it came from blockchain sources

to get to some peoples points as it seems this topic is about some principles that go back as far as hal finney and his understanding of the economy. and something i mentioned in other topics

1. it does not matter if 10 people can mine for $7500 and 10 people can mine for $5000. the price for the OP is expressing is the guys that can mine for $5000. because thats the floor (bottomline cheapest/most efficient).

2. the guys at $7500 wont sell (unless stupid) for less than $7500. so if the price dropped to $6k the $7.5k guys would just hodl

3. however if the price was say $6k then the guys with the most efficient asics and the most cheapeat electric (the floor) can still sell at a profit. so they will..
this means the price can still go below $6k.

4. but when the price gets down to say $5k (the floor) literally all miners are not making profit. and so all miners are hodling and so the price begins to plateau at $5k and refuse to go lower.

5. as for the 'market' participants of the last 10 years. some have/did buy below $5k. and so able to profit below $5k. but the thing is. while the price for the last year has been $20k-$3.5k-$5k-$8k if thy have not sold yet, thus they dont want to sell for less than X thus making the price floor a 'bottomline support'

6. majority of ASIC farms do not react to the price. they preplan their hashrate months/a year in advance. they have special contracts with electric companies for best electric cost deals. they have special deals with ASIC manufactures to buy/reserve XXXXXX amount of asics of the next newest batch. they dont simply see a price rise and magically get delivered thousands of extra rigs within half an hour to respond to temporary speculative FOMO price rises.

7. you will notice
when the first major asics hit the market late summer 2013 the price moved up as a response to mining
when asic farmers sold off their old S9's dirt cheap in october 2018 and started using more efficient asics but less of them to cause the october hashrate drop.. in november the price dropped as a response to the floor drop
now the hashrate is rising. the cost floor is rising people are less inclined to sell for less and as such the price is rising

you will be surprised how in the mining/market dynamics. mining influences the market more than the market influences mining.

tl:dr; there gets to be a bottom floor where the general community all reach thier points they refuse to sell below. and eventually a plateau is reached where no one can profit when they sell. this is the OP's 'floor'

8. the OP is showing a chart of the difference between the price floor of the cheapest way to get coins right now, vs the current market price. thus this can be used for people to view how much of a gap there is between the bottomline value of bitcoin and the speculative FOMO price of the markets.

for instance if a miner could create bitcoin for $2k last year. but the market was $20k. thats $18k of speculation/hype FOMO/bubble, which is an obvious indicator that a large correction is impending.

however
in august 2018 if the miner could create bitcoin for $5.8k and the price was $6k then there is not much speculation occuring
in october 2018 if the miner could create bitcoin for $4k and the price was $6k then there is speculation occuring and expect a correction to be impending
in november 2018 if the miner could create bitcoin for $3.5k and price was $3.6k then there is not much speculation occuring

volume is an irrelevant metric anyway

having say $50k volume one day but $30k volume the next is MEANINGLESS
it does NOT mean more people are trading.
it does NOT mean more dollar is deposited.
it does NOT mean more people want to buy

volume does not reveal WHO or how much.
for instance with just $5k i can day trade/arbitrage around a market 10 times and make the volume appear as $50k even though the physical $$ moving is just $5k for the entire day.

but i do have to agree, because 'stablecoins' dont have the disadvantage of taking 3-5 business days to move from an american account of exchange A to exchange B. stable coins can be used to arbitrage exchanges in seconds. which makes arbitrages circle faster and thus make volumes numbers appear larger due to more arbitrage cycles.

what would be more of a metric is how much fiat is on orderlines at any one point. then different days you can spot if there are more or less 'buyers' than usual because you can spot how much TOTAL $$ is fixed to an orderline thus able to total how much dollar wants to be buying bitcoin.

the other advantage is that you can spot which direction a market may flow. here is the most easiest way without knowing numbers but just looking at order charts


but getting back to the topic.. the "volume" metric is meaningless.. it reveals absolutely nothing about the markets that can be of any use in any way

WE all know he is not satoshi. but there is a record currently that shows his name sat beside the name satoshi on a government database. scammers use these flimsy records as a tool to scam

read the green. the C.O do not investigate.
it means some american guy has to pay the minimum $35 fee to re-file new names to cancel out craigs name. OR go to court to prove it.

but while nothing is done. craig can use that flimsy record as a foot in the door way to scam people

it doesnt matter whats legal. thats for a court room.

but here is the problem
"The Copyright Office can cancel a registration application if it is certain that presented information is a false claim and the person claiming to be the author of a work is in actual fact not who they claim they are."

by the C.O not cancelling the registration. and by the office currently having his name attached as the pseudonym. OUTSIDE of court craig can perform many scams and start cease & Desist tricks using the C.O current filing.

after all he performed the aussie government tax scam using simply a text file of PUBLIC keys as his scammer tool. thats how lame law/justice/scamming is

the only way a C&D recipient could stop this would be to defend in court and fight craig in court.

and here is the thing. it costs money to go to court. craig knows this.. many patent scammers, copyright scammers know this. their intention is NEVER to win court cases. but instead to get the defense to just hand the scammer some 'shut up and go away' money as its cheaper to settle than go to court

its like credit card chargeback scaming... only scam under $1k and the victim wont take you to court because it costs more than $1k to go to court. so scammer keeps the chargeback and the victim just accepts the lose without justice

knowing the network is centralised code to the "reference client" it does not matter if its 100 nodes or 100,000 nodes. if there is a bug in the code its not going to be limited to a single user. it will affect everyone running the code.

if you are talking about DISTRIBUTION rather than decentralisation. then having a node connect to 5 other nodes concentrates the bandwidth on 5 nodes. thus faster speed/propagation. but if the node is connected to 100 other nodes than the speed/bandwidth is diluted by 20x making each connection slower and propagation worse. so sometime distribution especially if nodes foolishly then strip/prune/filter data make it so theres more leachers than seeders

having some non-interested basement user that isnt really interested in bitcoin personally but has the naive assumption that they NEED to push their computer and bandwidth to the limit purely assuming it 'helps the network' is not what a decentralised network should be veiwed as.

wats better is for those people who NEED to verify more than a few transactions a day, have more reason to be a full node. and it becomes in their own benefit of needing to verify that would self motivate them to want to invest in self verifying.

there is no need to stifle bitcoin to make average uninterested joe into a full node. its just better to let nature do its thing, better to have 100,000 businesses and regular users be full nodes because their self motivated by the need to verify.. rather than 100,000 randomers thinking they should be full nodes because 'fear of network security'

crypto mining is functioning fine.

the negative is that not everyone can be a constant winner.
its always a competition

this means the bottomline threshold has to rise. not everyone can win so all the home hobbiests thinking they can get rich quick at home running a cellphone app wont get far. as the hashrate/difficulty is way way way above the old CPU mining days.

same with gold. its no longer the days of pickaxes. its the days of excavators

those that are not living in the right region to have access to cheap electric wont prosper bitcoin mining
those that are not living in the right region to have access to cheap diesel wont prosper gold mining

those not able to invest in the best, most efficient equipment to compete wont prosper bitcoin mining
those not able to invest in the best, most efficient equipment to compete wont prosper gold mining

you do realise real byte for byte hard drive space segwit is actually heavier than a legacy. (hense the need to wishy washy code of witness scalefactor and Vbytes to hide it all)
a full node is a full node because it archives the entire blockchain  AND signatures so that when new users want to sync the new user can get the signature data to validate.
nodes that strip signatures, prune 'spents' are not full nodes.
so segwit does not help full nodes.
segwit is just another dataset to let litenodes leach stripped data
segwit is just a tx format thats purpose is to be a gateway transaction to another network

the hope/hype of segwit making transactions cheaper was false promise. remember 2015 first mentioning the path to segwit. people were discussing the subpenny/10c area.    now with segwit people are discussing 25c/$ area and those segwit lovers are really trying to promote fee wars of pressurising fee' UP

so tell me as unfashionably or fashionably as you like. what is your reason for hoping for more segwit adoption. what benefit of say 4mb of hard drive space do you think 100% segwit adoption would give. compared to 4mb of hard drive space using legacy

forget about his BSV. thats just the subterfuge. thats his fake 'how i make my money without scamming because blockchains are transparent".. Bsv is just a crap coin, its not going anywhere and wont be a success.. just look at the lack of merchant utility and realise its a pointless crapcoin

how he is really making fiat is from his VC investment scams, patent cease and desist scams.his end game is to not win patents using evidence of actual ownership. but to use flimsy foot in the door 'certificate' of a government document with his name on it saying he authored X to start C&D claims. knowing that without him having to fight, he makes/forces the recipient to have to defend. if they dont defend he wins by dfault. if they try to defend it costs them money, thus they usually attempt to compromise a settlement for a % of the defense costs. and thats his game
he hopes to grab as much fiat as he can to just pay off the aussie government to get them off his back.
its the typical ponzi trick. scam one to pay another to keep the second one from chasing him

thats my theory of his next game. and its a very lucrative market for scammers.
spend a cheap lawsuit filing fee to open a case after a C&D warning shot. then make the recipient either not defend it, thus default win for craig. or the recipient trie settling with craig just to make him go away.

i dont think craig has any intention to use his now certificated name on that copyright to actually go through the full hurdle of a full lawsuit against people he C&D spams. he just wants to play the patent scammer trend of cheap settlement scamming

after all look at how many millions he scammed with just a text file of PUBLIC keys as his weapon a few years back. now h has a governemt piece of paper naming him for something. which can be weaponised too

and that is the point, craig has a certificate naming him as the creator of a whitepaper of 2008 and a first edition version of the software in january 2009. the MIT licence was added later (someone else pointed out in another similar topic)
thus craig although a known scam artist. doesnt need to prove anything outside of court. but can for just cheap filing fee's now cause mischief by suing MIT or sourceforge or anything, using the certificate as his foot in the door... and then leave the door
open for the people he tries to sue to defend or settle.

its how scammers scam. they dont care about having real evidence to win a case in law. they just care to force others to waste time. money defending. in the hopes they dont defend. thus win by default. or they settle for low % of defense cost to just pay him to go away.

after all look what he done in the past. he managed to scam the aussie tax office for millions using only a text file of PUBLIC keys. you would be surprised what could be done with a certificate that has your name on it saying you created a whitepaper and first edition of software. that has been notorised by a government.

anyone in america prepared to file to change the record so it shows something like 'satoshi and everyone under MIT licence open source' just to quash this or prove its that easy to get craig removed

the point is not what is evident. its that some aussie con man can try finding some loose reason to try sueing an institution not to win. not to prove anything. but to try getting a early 'settlement' just to make the claim go away.

EG craig can with his name on a certificate can say his version 0.1 in january was X but MIT edited 0.1.5 in september 2009 to add MIT open source.
even though its not true. now MIT has to respond IN COURT

this happens many many times. people file frivolous patent suits even for things they dont own. but do it just to try getting quick settlements. all they need is something flimsy just to kickstart a case

craig doesnt need a leg to stand on. all he needs is a toe in the door and then he can harass anyone that opens a door to him. thats the point. to have legal standing involves standing in court to defend. all craig needs to do is show some flimsy certificate to atleast start a fight. and then let the other side get bloody trying to defend/counter. bcaus if they dont defend it, he wins by default. in which case most just pay up to shut up.

EG go to a bar. find someone that looks like they dont want to fight/cant fight and try to provoke them. more then likely the other side will try to avoid a fight by giving you a free beer to cheer you up/calm you down. even if the one getting provoked done nothing wrong

call me unfashionable but LN is not bitcoin. LN is a separate network. hint is in what the N stands for.
the unit of measure in LN is Msats which are played around with. and separately those Msats are converted/pegged to represent a bitcoin balance. but could also represent a balance of other coins too.

btc is only btc on the btc blockchain. they never leave.
the unconfirmed playing around/unsettled payments are not confirmed btc ownership. they are just temporary private agreements of possible future ownership (an iou in simple terms)

LN is not bitcoin.

your ronald example was registering a name and got it rubber stamped to some EQUITY thing that sounds like bitcoin.
its not the same situation as saying categorically the bitcoin whitepaper

if the ronald dude registered the whitepaper then craig did, then ronald could mess with craig.
but ronald registered for a "equity based peer to peer currency"

all your point is making is that i could register for a "asset based peer to peer currency"
all your point is making is that someone else could register for a "debt based peer to peer currency"
all your point is making is that someone else could register for a "scurity based peer to peer currency"

the ronald example has no point relating to the bitcoin whitepaper

maybe a point to make is if some american paid the $35 and got the name changed to:
satoshi and 'everyone under open licence'
rather than craig and see how easy it is to change that record to remove craigs name

point is the REGISTRATION was in april.
no one contested it. thus no investigation/no verification process was needed. thus automatic rubber stamp changed
thus in may the C.O changed ownership from an anonymous pseudonym to a guy with a birth certificate.

now that certificate can be used to make many more false claim court cases and hope the defendants 'settle' early just to avoid having to prove its a false claim

lets word it another way.
it cost craig $35 to do this. but would cost someone else alot more now to contest it

no one outside of craigs circle jerk ponzi club cares about bitcoinsv. its just a pump and dump coin.
dont give bitcoinsv another thought.
all that should be thought about is how craig can mess with btc

but craig with his name on a certificate in relation to the 2008 whitepaper could claim that he created bitcoin under closed source in 2008 and that MIT infringed him. thus try suing MIT, as well as suing whoever he pleases.
yea theres chances he cant win. but in may cases the people getting sued end up 'settling' just to save money.
thats how the world works these days. fake a claim get them to pay you a % early on to just make you go away

unit bias: agree. mainstream cant concieve of 0.00000100 they prefer 1bit or 100 sat units
currency: partly: as a daily spend/disposable income currency bitcoins deflationary nature makes people 'hodl' not spend
                         as a investment asset currency bitcoins deflationary nature is great
                         howevr to be a asset currency you need to actually have things to buy with it. so one needs the other

scaling: agree. too many people think scaling is about large jumps to rediculous amount. scaling is progresssive.
                      we had scaling in 2009-2015, 0.25mb 2009->2013. 0.5mb2013->2014. 0.75mb 2014-2015. 1mb2015+
                      what we should remember though is offchain/sidechains are ALTERNATIVE NETWORKS
                      saying bitcoin cant scale to advertise a different network and get users to move off bitcoin. doesnt help
                      stifling bitcoins scaling just to promote other networks is ludicrous
                      and yes i agre even these pegged alt networks need bitcoins network to scale just to make the alts work

now my unfashionable opinion

bitcoin is distributed, not decentralised.
bitcoin is not AI, it does not self code. it does not any longer only change due to community opt-in. there is a central dev team that are now too empowered with decisions and they can implement their decisions without community opt-in(consensus)

1) no, he had nothing to do with bitcoin 2008-2011

2) yes, he is doing it to fake his way to privelidge without actually owning the bitcoin collateral
one reason is to get money from others like any ponzi guy would
one reason is he still has the aussie government on his back so is trying literally anything to fake his claims to try getting them off his back

either way. he does not own the satoshi stash of coins that made up his 'tulip trust' so civil courts will still pursue him.
he just hopes to get rich enough to pay them off, inclding other investors he duped.

but putting aside his personal legal issues. by putting his name to claims of patenting the bitcoin whitepaper can lead to him filing new patents and making it a lil harder for others to contest his claims even when its obvious he is a fake. which could lead to him using patents to then sue people frivolously(for nonsense reasons) and mess with the bitcoin community, which could cause alot of negatives and affect peoples utility of bitcoin through official institutions and legit businesses